More Evidence For Planet 9

This sounds like another instance in which the decimal point is several places off.

Stellar information from never a straight answer agency.

I got all of that. My gripe is with the comment:

Planet Nine's unusual orbit, however, adds a multi-billion-year wobble to that system.

The only way to cause a 'wobble' is via gravity; the idea that they can estimate a billion year wobble after only 200 years of observations, seems ludicrous to me. especially considering the size and distance. Any wobble it would cause is lost in the noise of all the other effects. Even tiny Pluto would have a larger effect.

"The only way to cause a 'wobble' is via gravity;"

At that distance the suns magnetic field would approximate a dipole?

How is it that magnetic polarity can be ignored in orbital mechanics?

Unrelated questions:

What is the relative polarities of the magnetic fields of the Earth and Sun? How about Jupiter and the Sun?

Could the net magnetic force angles of the planets be resolved to an "average" angle?

Magnetic dipole force drops off as the cube of distance. The magnetic force between earth and the sun is very much less than the gravitational attraction.

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/68976/is-there-a-relation-between-the-magnetic-field-force-of-the-earth-and-the-gravit

Are we confident that field strength decreases as the cube of the distance ? Or as a square of the distance ?

Also, wouldn't the force be in trigometric proportion to the dipolar field angle between the bodies ?

Does the relative length of the dipoles matter ?

I believe the first mention and study of planet 9 dates to about the second dynasty of China and has notable comments by astronomers down through time since.

"What is unusual is that the angular momentum vector of the sun points in a different direction from the angular momentum of the 8 planets."

How big of a difference?

Is this difference big enough to rule out axial precession of the sun as the cause of this difference?

The axial tilt of the sun is 6 degrees with respect to a vector perpendicular to the plane of the 8 planets.

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/precession-of-the-suns-rotation-axis.418813/

I would suspect that if the sun is precessing due to tidal effect from the planets that the 6 degrees would remain constant and would rotate about the vector perpendicular to the plane of the 8 planets just as the earth's axis precesses about a vector perpendicular to the earth's orbital plane.

Does this infer that all of the planets have identical inclination ???

Certainly this is not the case.

Perhaps the reference plane is defined as the average angular momentum of all closed orbit bodies in the solar system ? Would this be the same as the barycentric plane ? That being a plane extending from sun center of mass to solar system barycenter ?

If by inclination, you refer to the spin axis, then no they don't. In fact, Uranus spins on its side (inclination=98 degrees) and Venus actually rotates backwards.

http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/solarspin.htm

In #11, I was referring to precession and using the earth as an example. As it spins, the earth is flattened at the poles and expanded at the equator. Tidal force from the moon and sun will try to "straighten it out", but since it is spinning like a gyroscope, it precesses instead, taking about 26000 years for a complete cycle.

Theoretically, the tidal forces from the planets should do the same to the sun, but the effect would be much, much weaker and a cycle would take much, much longer.

The reference plane you are talking about, I believe, is called Laplace's Invariable Plane.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invariable_plane

In the beginning, the cloud from which the sun and planets coalesced had some amount of angular momentum, which should be the same today.

The planets do not orbit on the same plane with the reference plane being Earths's orbital plane (ecliptic)?

It in this context Inclination refers to an orbital element that is defined as:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_inclination

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_elements

I believe Obliquity is the term used to describe the angular offset of spin axis relative to the ecliptic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_tilt - which also is described as "inclination of Equator to Ecliptic" in the "Handbook of Chemistry and Physics" astronomy tables.

From the "Handbook of Chemistry and Physics" the inclination of orbit to ecliptic for the major planets are as follows -

Mercury - 7.0028 degrees

Venus - 3.4

Earth -

moon - 5.12

Mars - 1.85

Jupiter - 1.309

Saturn - 2.493

Uranus - .773

Neptune - 1.779

Pluto - 17.46

When considering tidal friction wouldn't the net force vector be the sum of the individual force vectors acting relative to sol spin axis ?" With the vector defining average orbital plane for the planets ?

A dynamic barycenter would define not only the true prime focus for planetary orbits but also describe a barycentric plane that changes relative to the positions of the contributing bodies?

Obliquity is the correct term for tilt of a planet's rotation with respect to its orbital plane. I don't know how the definition would apply to the sun, but what would be important as far as precession is concerned would be in reference to the orbital planes of the major gas giants, primarily Jupiter.

If you were to calculate the precession of the sun due to tidal forces from the planets, you could calculate for each planet using the planet's orbital plane as reference, and in the end add the effects.

The effects are going to be exceedingly small. The tidal force is the rate of change with distance of the gravitational attraction, and so is proportional to the inverse cube of distance and the sun is almost perfectly spherical so there is hardly any bulge.

Laplace's invariant plane is the plane through the barycenter (center of gravity) of the solar system and perpendicular to the total angular momentum vector for everything in the solar system and because of the conservation of angular momentum. It doesn't change as the planets move.

Having said that, an ejected planet probably would take some angular momentum away with it. (It would be like a person throwing a ball while sitting on a rotating stool that ends up rotating.) The sum total would be the same, but the total of "what's left" would be different. What we see today is "what's left" and we have no idea when or if a planet has been ejected from the solar system in the past.

"so is proportional to the inverse cube of distance"

Newton defined gravitational force as being inversly proportional to the square of the distance. When did this change to a cube?

Cubed is for tidal effect, not for two-body gravitational attraction.

So; pray tell, how do you propose to associate a "tidal effect" to anything but a gravitational attraction?

Just read up on it.

Ok; I will. But you make it sound as if the angular momentum component adds to the square relationship of tidal force to gravity.

I am not buying into the "differential force" adding a multiple to the distance variable.

"Invariable plane." ???

How can the barycentric plane be "invariable" if it is defined as a multibody problem where those bodies change position?

"In the beginning, the cloud from which the sun and planets coalesced had some amount of angular momentum, which should be the same today."

This would only be true if there is no magnetic induction taking place. When we look at time frames that large even the most minute induction (conductive material moving through a magnetic field) would translate angular momentum to thermal radiation?

Momentum and angular momentum are conserved even in electromagnetic interactions. The electromagnetic field itself has momentum and angular momentum.

http://www.reed.edu/physics/faculty/wheeler/documents/Electrodynamics/Class%20Notes/Chapter%203.pdf

The angular momentum of radiation (e.g., light) is miniscule and the amount of angular momentum of planets is huge. Even if you wanted to include this, radiation emitted in one direction would cancel out that emitted in the opposite direction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum_of_light

I observed a small plate of aluminum used as a pendulum swinging between the poles of a horseshoe magnet.

The angular momentum of the pendulum was changed rather radically due to electromagnetic induction as it swung between the poles.

I believe the transnational energy of the pendulum was reduced because it underwent electrodynamic braking.

Given the conservation of energy – through what process was the transnational energy of the pendulum dissipated? Restive heating ?

The energy was dissipated by resistive heating due to Eddy currents in the aluminum conductor moving through the magnetic field. The angular momentum of the pendulum was transferred to the magnet and whatever it was attached to by the magnetic forces generated by these Eddy currents.

"The theory is that planet 9 is far from the sun and in a different orbital plane from the other 8 planets."

We already know of a planet far from the sun and in a different orbital plane from the other 8 planets.

It's called Pluto.

Given the data provided in post # 12,

for an orbital period of 10,000 to 20,000 years,

in the plane of ( Planet 9 ),

an average linear velocity can be calculated of

between, 1.16E+07 to 5.79E+06, km/hr,

which would seem to be (rolling along, right smartly...).

However, that would translate to

between 1.87E-07 and 3.73E-07 parsec/hour,

These would, in turn, translate to

between 1.04E-10 and 5.02E-09 seconds-of-arc per hour,

which is essentially stationary.

So, yes, it would be hard to know exactly where to

point a telescope directly at ( Planet 9 ) at any given time...

However, a strategically-located, robotically-operated, telescopic

space station, just might do the trick, eventually...

Your velocity estimate for planet 9 is a bit too high. The orbital speed of a planet around the sun (circular orbit) is inversely proportional to the square root of the radius r:

v = sqrt(μ/r) where μ = G x M_sun = 1.32712440018(9)×10²⁰ m³/s²

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_speed

Orbital velocity:

for Mercury = 47.4 km/s,

for Venus = 35 km/s,

for Earth = 29.8 km/s,

etcetera.

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/

For an elliptical orbit the formula is:

where a is the semi-major axis (half the long axis) and r is the distance from the sun

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_speed

We can simplify our calculations by using distance units in AU (earth's orbital radius) and velocity units in units of earth's velocity, thus getting rid of μ and then converting back to km/s.

Thus, the formula becomes:

v = earth's velocity x sqrt(2/r - 1/a) km/s

for planet 9, a = 700 AU, r varies between 200 AU and 1200 AU (estimated)

for r = 200 AU (perihelion), v = 29.8*sqrt(2/200 - 1/700) = 2.76 km/s

for r = 1200 AU (aphelion), v = 29.8 x sqrt(2/1200 - 1/700) = 0.46 km/s

So planet 9 is very far away and is moving very slowly in its orbit. It would be moving even more slowly across our field of view when the direction of motion is factored in. It would be very difficult to see any movement. It's also very dark out there, so it will be very dim. We only have a general idea where the orbit lies. And we have no idea where in the orbit it might be, although it is more likely in the outer part of its orbit because it is moving more slowly there and spends more time there.

It will be no easy task finding it if it exists.

Tomayto, tomahtoe...

If Planet 9 is that massive then wouldn't its existence offset solar system barycenter?

I've thought about your question a lot. The answer, I believe, is yes. But the only way we know where the barycenter (center of mass) is, is by calculation from the mass and position of all the known bodies in the solar system. There is no way to find it by observation, and so no way to detect any unknown planets.

There is actually some argument on physics forum sites on whether the earth orbits the sun or whether it orbits the barycenter of the solar system.

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/188650/do-the-planets-really-orbit-the-sun

Technically, every body orbits around the barycenter or center of gravity. But it turns out that if the sun is considered as the center, the orbits of the planets are simpler and very closely approximate an ellipse (two body system). The reason for this is that the sun far outweighs anything else in the solar system.

In the barycentric view, as the sun dances around the barycenter, the earth performs a very similar dance which is superimposed on its orbital motion. So even though the sun moves around the barycenter, the earth-sun distance is not affected by this motion.

Here is a plot of the distance between Venus and the sun and the barycenter. (We use Venus because the earth-sun distance is confused by the moon.)

So, Mr. Kepler found a much simpler formula assuming that the planets revolve around the sun.

I hope all of this is not totally confusing!

"Off Topic" just trying to be efficient

I read the passage on planet 9.

It's round. It's big. It's cold. It's a long ways away. It's orbit is off kilter.

No one knows what it looks like, so we only have an artist impression of what it might look like.

Could someone provide 10 reasons why anything about planet 9 should matter to someone with a pea brain like me could understand who is living on planet 3 ?

If not 10 reasons, how about just five.

1. Learning more about it will help us better understand the solar system, of which planet 3 is a part.
2. (Building off of 1): The more we know about our own solar system, the better understanding we will have on what makes extrasolar systems (other 'solar systems') similar and different from our own.
3. (Building off of 2): The more we know about the similarities and differences in solar systems, the better we will understand where to look for extraterrestrial life and/or why it appears that life does not seem to exist 'out there' in any way that we can detect.
4. It will provide a rich new location for science fiction writers to set stories in.
5. It gives wisenheimers like me an excuse to come up with numbered lists.

How's that work for you, Tony?

It's hard to imagine how a planet that far away and only 10 times earth's size could have that much effect - unless it's a black hole.

I think elliptical brings it close to the earth in its end run around the sun.

Here is how I understand it. Planet 9 was originally proposed to explain orbital motions of 6 trans Neptunian Objects (TNOs).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2015/09/03/is-there-a-planet-x-a-massive-perturber-hidden-beyond-pluto/?tid=a_inl

The angle of the perihelion of these seem to be correlated when you would expect they would be random. The hypothesis is that a planet (Planet 9) of approximately 10 earth masses is corralling these objects, much like Jupiter has corralled the asteroid belt.

The mass and orbital parameters derived from this hypothetical Planet 9 apparently explains the difference between the sun's angular momentum direction and that of the 8 planets. (There is a 6 degree discrepancy.) If you add the angular momentum of the hypothetical Planet 9 to that of the other 8 planets, the total angular momentum direction agrees with the direction of the sun's angular momentum vector.

It seems like the best time to look for ( Planet 9 ) might be as soon as the elliptical orbit of Pluto (displays) unusual path variations of it's own...

It might only turn out to be the cumulative effects of the other (deeper) orbiting bodies, but that would be interesting to track for (nearer-misses), if nothing else...

It seems like (spot-checking) the relevant elliptical orbits of all but ( Planet 9 ) should then generate a mathematical model of what Pluto's orbital position is expected to be at specific times in the (relatively) near future, amongst the other Non-Planet-9 (entities).

Thus, when Pluto's orbit stars to vary from it's predicted (route), should not that be treated as a signal to start actively looking for what's causing such a variation?...

Yes but we're late to the party

Actually, according to several astronomical research teams, we may well be about 16 months early, as per their most recent predictions...

Curiously, one of the leading (contenders) for the title of ( Planet )'s (discoverers) is the group at Japan's Subaru National Observatory, which is located in Hawaii ( !?... )

Our Sun has previously been described as having been pulled some 6 degrees off it's rotational axis due to the cumulative effects of ( Planet 9 ).

But recently, a new theory contends that all the regular planets have each been pulled off the axes by 6 degrees, instead...

Oh woe is us?...

The justification for all this hubbub is that the orbits of much smaller (astronomical objects) have been observed to be large enough to support the existence of ( Planet 9 ), to a degree-of-accuracy enough to estimate a preliminary (arrival time and direction).

The big question remains... (i.e.: Which (astro-paparazzi ?) will foto it first?... )

And yes, it does appear that Pluto was caught ( napping )...

So instead of one star being tilted 6 degrees, we have eight planets and an asteroid belt all with their orbits tilted six degrees, all in the same direction?

Let's put Occam's Razor to the strop so we can get a clean cut here.

It is a simpler scenario that one object has been tilted than for 8 objects (and one dispersed 'ring' of countless smaller objects) of varying mass to all have their orbits tilted the SAME amount and in the SAME direction.

I could be wrong here, but the 'tilted sun' scenario raises fewer supplemental questions, so it'll be easier to see what answers lie down that path before we start looking at the other scenario.

Simplistic, yes, given ( Planet 9 )s apparent mass, trajectory, and orbital velocity, it could well be that it would be easier to affect the axial tilt of 8 to 9 much smaller planets than it would be to similarly affect 1 much larger sun...

A 3 watt/ sq meter reduction in the solar constant is only a reduction of .22 percent. This is a very small variation in solar input when considering the exponential relationship of input energy to equilibrium temperature.

Given Stefan-Boltzmann Law a .22 percent change in solar output would have negligible effect on Equilibrium Temperature, with all other variables, including atmospheric composition, remaining the same.

A more likely candidate for the cooling referenced is volcanic activity?

Woops; wrong thread.

But to affect them all in the exact same magnitude and direction, when they are so widely dispersed around their orbits.

Let me show an example: Say we have a system with three planets (To keep the 'drawing' clear and simple) Planets a and b are in the orbital plane, planet c is canted like 'planet 9' is. so the system layout is as follows:

-c

-------b-------(SUN)---a

For the orbital planes of a and b to tilt in the same direction, the planets would need to react in opposite ways, if b is being attracted 'up' towards c, then a needs to be repelled 'down' for their orbital planes to tilt the same way. Even when a and b are o the same side of the sun as c, their varying masses and distances from c would mean they get pulled different amounts, so their orbits would no longer be in the same plane with each other.

When you look at our solar system, the planetary masses, orbital distance, and orbital velocities vary so much with each other, and there is no correlation with mass and orbit, so the force needed to 'tweak' each orbit varies in an almost random fashion from planet to planet, and 'planet 9' would need to have varying mass and be in multiple positions simultaneously (while only exerting influence from one position per planet) to move all the orbits the exact same amount in the exact same direction.

Predicting orbits can be tricky.

You're familiar with the "Three Body Problem," correct; trying to calculate accurate orbits of systems is trivial for two-body systems, but difficult for 3+ body systems.

Even taking moons and the Asteroid belt out of the equation, we are looking at a 10-body system to calculate Pluto's orbit, and Pluto's orbital period is a bit over 249 YEARS, deviations from it's 'predicted' orbit could be as much due to inaccurate measurements as to 'Planet X.'

(I prefer, 'Planet X' to 'Planet 9' because X indicates the 'unknown variable' being solved for in an equation, and also because we already HAVE a Planet 9, Pluto.)

And just exactly who (promised) that all astronomy, etc., would be easy?...

Or quick?...

Ok. So the planets each affect the other's orbit and the sun's. We may have another planet out there turning orbits also. But why do the planets and our moon, and other planets' moons all look so different from each other, if all formed from the same gas cloud, at the same time? And why is the sun, the "sun", from that cloud, and not a planet?

Somebody gave your post a score 1 for off topic, not sure why, it seems like in the discussion of a planet or planets, your post should be on topic. Unless your question has struck a raw nerve with someone.

It would be like if you asked, when subatomic particles are collided in a particle accelerator and new, even smaller particles are formed ( discovered), how long could the process of forming (discovering) smaller particles continue.

The planets far from the sun are gas giants because it is cold out there. Close to the sun, the gases are driven off and most of what remains is rock.

The sun is large enough that the gases (mostly hydrogen and helium) are compressed and heated up to the point that nuclear fusion is taking place.

This is a question in several parts.

A. You said that the planets closer to the sun have had their gasses driven off and what remains is rock ( Venus, Mercury ) / gasses being atmosphere ? But the earths gasses are still present, although most of Mars are not.

B. Have space temperatures been recorded like: when a planet is close to the sun and the planet is facing the sun and when a planet is close to the sun and the temperature is of the dark side of the planet. Also the same recordings when a planet is the farthest distance from the sun.

C. Where did the gasses go ? Are they floating in space or has the sun's gravitational pull drawn them towards the sun ?

D. Has a study been done to determine the interaction between temperature change and distance at intervals from the sun's surface to the orbit of Pluto.

A. You said that the planets closer to the sun have had their gasses driven off and what remains is rock ( Venus, Mercury ) / gasses being atmosphere ? But the earths gasses are still present, although most of Mars are not.

The radius of the earth is about 4000 miles. Only the top 20 miles or so is gas. By contrast, Jupiter is gas most of the way down.

B. Have space temperatures been recorded like: when a planet is close to the sun and the planet is facing the sun and when a planet is close to the sun and the temperature is of the dark side of the planet. Also the same recordings when a planet is the farthest distance from the sun.

There are a number of factors that determine the temperature of a planet. If a planet is rotating, the day and night side temperatures are equalized to a certain extent, depending on the atmosphere and speed of rotation. Venus is very hot due to it's heavy atmosphere. Most planetary orbits are roughly circular, the most elliptic being Mercury.

C. Where did the gasses go ? Are they floating in space or has the sun's gravitational pull drawn them towards the sun ?

Gases are driven away by the solar wind.

D. Has a study been done to determine the interaction between temperature change and distance at intervals from the sun's surface to the orbit of Pluto.

http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/galleries/solar-system-temperatures

Since we are knowledgeable of the conditions being discussed in how many instances have we reproduced a model sustainably?

Because the ''sun'' is the central source which emits the light illuminating this solar system, where as, planets predominantly absorb and reflect light instead, maybe...?

Couple of dumb questions:

• If the Hubble telescope can "see" 13+ billion light years away, why don't we just point it at so-called Planet 9, and see if it's really there, and if so what does it really look like?

• If we don't know where to look because the thing is moving, can't the geniuses who postulated its existence earn their keep and figure out where to look?

We blew a whole discussion on something that might not even exist!

It's not quite that simple. If you've ever used a telescope, you'll know that the field of view is very small, so you have to know exactly where to point it. You can only deduce where a planet might be from the orbits of other bodies in a general sense, nowhere precisely enough to just aim your telescope, but it does give you an area to search.

Neptune was discovered by studying the orbit of Uranus.

"The ice giant Neptune was the first planet located through mathematical predictions rather than through regular observations of the sky. (Galileo had recorded it as a fixed star during observations with his small telescope in 1612 and 1613.) When Uranus didn't travel exactly as astronomers expected it to, a French mathematician, Urbain Joseph Le Verrier, proposed the position and mass of another as yet unknown planet that could cause the observed changes to Uranus' orbit. After being ignored by French astronomers, Le Verrier sent his predictions to Johann Gottfried Galle at the Berlin Observatory, who found Neptune on his first night of searching in 1846. Seventeen days later, its largest moon, Triton, was also discovered."

http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/neptune/indepth

Pluto was discovered in the same way, by analyzing perturbations in the orbits of Uranus and Neptune. (Ironically, Pluto is too small to account for the orbital perturbations.)

http://archive-edu.com/edu/c/caltech.edu/2015-05-18_5927268_29/Who_discovered_Pluto_Cool_Cosmos/

I have used a telescope, and you're correct in that you must know where to look.

Evidently didn't read the second of my dumb questions.

Casper

Has anybody ever considered the possibility of interstellar forces contributing to the tilt of the Sun?

Nearby galaxies obviously have a much greater mass than a single planet.

"Nearby galaxies obviously have a much greater mass than a single planet."

Yes, however, the effect of gravity falls off with the SQUARE of the distance. So, to get an equal effect at various distances, the chart comes out as follows (Using basic units for clarity)

• Distance 1X requires Mass 1Y to exert force 1F
• Distance 2X requires Mass 4Y to exert force 1F
• Distance 3X requires Mass 9Y to exert force 1F
• Distance 10X requires Mass 100Y to exert force 1F
• Distance 100X requires Mass 10,000Y to exert force 1F
• Distance 1,000X requires Mass 1,000,000Y to exert force 1F

It is because of this distance relationship that the Moon (Luna) is what controls tides on Earth, not Mars, Io, the Sun, or the Horsehead Nebula.

Actually, the tidal force (change of gravity with distance), which is the only way that the solar tilt could be influenced, drops off as the cube of distance.

Thank you, I must have mixed up my 'seldom used' equations.

Using the CUBE of distance, instead of the square, the mass of distant objects becomes effectively irrelevant even sooner than my chart showed.

Pluto was demoted as a planet, and it was also called planet X.

The 3 body problem has been solved:

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2013/03/physicists-discover-whopping-13-new-solutions-three-body-problem

Unfortunately, no general solution exists, only 16 (so far) special configurations which are stable. The most commonly known one results in the Lagrange points. L1, L2, and L3 are dynamically unstable but L4 and L5 are stable. The third body would have to be exactly at L1, L2, or L3 to stay there, whereas a body near L4 or L5 would move in a kidney shaped orbit.

The picture below shows the gravitational potential contour map for the five Lagrange points in the sun-earth system.

A contour plot of the effective potential due to gravity and the centrifugal force of a two-body system in a rotating frame of reference. The arrows indicate the gradients of the potential around the five Lagrange points—downhill toward them (red) or away from them (blue). Counterintuitively, the L₄ and L₅ points are the high points of the potential. At the points themselves these forces are balanced.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_point

In the general case, the only way to "solve" the multi-body problem for more than two objects is by computer simulation. Knowing the current positions, the forces between bodies and the resulting acceleration for each body is computed. Knowing the positions, velocities and accelerations of the bodies, new positions and velocities for each body are computed for a short time later. This process is repeated over and over. Inaccuracies in the initial conditions of position and velocity will, over time, result in significant error.

Assuming there is enough (gravitational attraction) to keep ( Planet 9 ) in said elliptical orbit around (our) solar system, just how does ( Planet 9 ) impart enough (influence) on (Sol) to cause it's vertical axis to tilt 6 degrees from the apparently great distance of a minimum of 200 AU ?...

Here is how I understand it.

Start with a large cloud of gas and dust. After a long time it starts collapsing under its own gravitation. It will have some random amount of rotation, and as it gets smaller, it starts to rotate faster, just as an ice skater rotates faster when she pulls in her arms.

There are numerous collisions as it collapses and each time angular momentum is exchanged and some energy is lost. After a long period of time, everything is moving in the same direction, in a disk (accretion disk). The angular momentum of everything is in the same direction, including the central mass which will become our sun.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accretion_disk

At some early time a near collision with another planet (probably Jupiter) results in planet 9 being deflected outward. (This would have had to happen at least 200 AU from the sun, planet 9's perihelion.) Jupiter is also deflected, and its change in angular momentum is the opposite of planet 9, so the total angular momentum of the system remains unchanged. But the total angular momentum of the cloud without planet 9 is changed.

For billions of years, the accretion disk without planet 9 evolves into the solar system we know today with the eight planets and numerous minor planets, asteroids, etc. As before, the angular momentum of all objects because of collisions and near collisions become pretty much aligned again, in the current condition. An exception is the sun, which has collapsed into a star. It is not interacting with the outer parts of the cloud and its angular momentum remains in the same direction it was before planet 9 departed.

Rixter, thank you for your theory. In my never ending pursuit to learn, I like a forum where I can ask questions.

1. Where did the gas and dust come from ?

2. What types of gas and dust are compatible to combine ?

3. What types of gas and dust that could of been present were not compatible and what became of them ?

4. Is there a way to measure the rate that gas and dust collapses under an unknown amount of a gravitational force in order to form a combination.

5. You said, some energy is lost ; how does one determine how much energy there was to begin with ?

6. How does one determine the difference in gravitational force before the energy was lost and the force that was present beforehand ?

7. I am guessing that particles of gas and dust cannot collide / gas could collide and dust could collide, and if " particles " did collide and their collisions produced angular projections, then how could they eventually start to move in the same direction if the collisions are constantly causing the particles to move in different directions ?

8. Has the process of gas and dust concluded or is there gas and dust that is still present and can an example be provided showing the stages of the combinations. ( A series of live pictures, not an animated image or video ).

Thanks, Tony

1. Where did the gas and dust come from ?

They were thrown into space by the explosion of a dying star.

2. What types of gas and dust are compatible to combine ?

As there is no real distinction between 'gas molecules' and 'dust molecules' in space, that can all be considered a single category, 'particles in space' or simply 'particles.'

At the start of planetary formation, the particles are too small to have much mass, so they are drawn together by electrostatic forces, until the clumps grow large enough to start pulling in dust by gravity.

Until the gravity gets strong enough for the particles to begin to 'layer,' with the denser ones migrating to the core and the less dense ones migrating to the surface, all particles are 'compatible' with all other particles for combination.

3. What types of gas and dust that could of been present were not compatible and what became of them ?

As all particles are 'compatible' with each other for planetary formation, this question is Not Applicable. (The question isn't 'wrong' as in 'bad,' it was simply based in an incomplete understanding of the underlying issue.)

In late planet formation, the lighter free gases (once the planet has achieved an appropriate temperature for the 'lighter' elements to exist in gaseous form) can be 'blown away'/'torn away' when they drift to the 'top of the atmosphere and encounter the forces of the solar wind. These gases are, pushed out into the Ort cloud that 'surrounds' the solar system. (although, technically the Ort cloud is still part of the solar system, as it reaches out all the way to the Heliopause, the point where the pressure of the solar wind is balanced by the pressure of the particles that make up the 'open space' in the Milky Way.)

4. Is there a way to measure the rate that gas and dust collapses under an unknown amount of a gravitational force in order to form a combination.

Not for 'an unknown amount of gravitational force,' when the equation contains an unknown, the answer will also be an unknown. (Ex: y=2x, until you know x you cannot know y ) However, since particles have mass, and mass has gravity proportional to the mass, then it can be determined what mass threshold is required for a clump to pull in matter by gravity, and what mass threshold is required for a clump to start to 'crush down' into a spheroid.

5. You said, some energy is lost ; how does one determine how much energy there was to begin with ?

So many factors here (temperature, kinetic energy, potential energy, energy locked up in keeping the matter as 'matter' [ the old e=mC² formula shows up again ], it's impossible to calculate beyond the roughest of rough guesses how much energy there is in a galactic cloud.

6. How does one determine the difference in gravitational force before the energy was lost and the force that was present beforehand ?

Gravitational force is constant, dependent on the mass of the object and the distance between the object and the point being looked at. As energy has almost zero mass ( e=mC² can be rewritten as m = e/C², It can be shown that energy has mass, but is it infinitesimal compared to matter) its effect on gravity can be safely ignored without disturbing any equations.

7. I am guessing that particles of gas and dust cannot collide / gas could collide and dust could collide, and if " particles " did collide and their collisions produced angular projections, then how could they eventually start to move in the same direction if the collisions are constantly causing the particles to move in different directions ?

When you have a large mass turning in space, you experience an effect known as 'frame dragging.' it is a gravitational equivalent of how all the water in a pot will swirl in the same direction as a slender wooden spoon moving through it. As particles lose kinetic energy, they start to succumb to the frame dragging.

8. Has the process of gas and dust concluded or is there gas and dust that is still present and can an example be provided showing the stages of the combinations. ( A series of live pictures, not an animated image or video ).

Gas and dust are still present, and still combining. If you want a live picture, not a recorded video, step outside tonight and look up. It's all happening out there, in every direction. You might want to get a telescope to get a better view on some of the smaller or more distant events.

Thanks, Tony

You're welcome.

Rixter: Accepting that planetary orbits are barycentric instead of heliocentric, but this would not affect the distance of the Earth from Sun center of mass as it orbits barycenter, is counterintuitive to me. Could you explain a bit further?

It appears that the worlds space agencies are now using solar system barycenter when calculating ephemerides. I wonder if this is a result of the flight path angle errors related to the Pioneer missions?

Given the inverse square relationship of gravitational force to distance the most influential planet defining tidal forces on the Sun is Jupiter. Planet X would contribute negligible gravitational tidal force on the sun; certainly not enough to affect the rotation axis of the Sun.

Is it possible that the Sum Force Vector of the planetary systems would define the prime focus of solar system barycentric orbits, with the initial point of reference being Sun center of mass. And that the prime focus would be dynamic in position generally lying along the R vector of Jupiter. This assuming the mass of the asteroids are evenly distributed about the average orbital plane of the planets.

Using classical Newtonian equation the force calculations show:

1.3271244 E20 = Gravitational Parameter for Sun

It would seem possible to empirically define solar system barycenter by observing the slight changes in flight path angle of a barycentric satellite.

http://astro.unl.edu/naap/esp/centerofmass.html

Including a ( barycentric satellite ) like Pluto ?...

Sure; why not - as long as empirical data can be collected through several orbits.

The orbital period of Pluto is about 248 years.
Although algorithmic extrapolation is a useful tool; the Pioneer Anomaly shows that method has its limitations.