Talk:Planets beyond Neptune/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

100 vs. 60 Sednas

I am not happy with the change of the number of possible Sedna-sized objects from 60 to 100. Not only does that number contradict the source, it also contradicts the quoted sentence. Serendipodous 21:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

True, it is not the same number given in the quoted sentence from the Lowell lecture. (I have not listened to the lecture.) However, the 100 number is from a published paper (also by Mike Brown!), which I think is a more reliable source than the lecture. The relevant passage, from the third paragraph of section 5 of Brown et al 2004 (DOI:10.1086/422095, arXiv:astro-ph/0404456):

The expected population of large objects like the one discovered here is large. Our survey could only have detected this object during ∼1% of its orbit, suggesting a population of ∼100 objects on similar orbits.

However, Brown notes earlier that this is an order of magnitude estimate, and I suspect that 1 in 100 and 1 in 60 are both consistent with this very rough estimate; saying "1 in 60" would be unusual in a journal paper, and 1/60 = 1.7%, which is ~1% in an order or magnitude sense. As Brown clearly indicates, you can't do reliable statistics of a population with only one datum!
Since the numbers are so uncertain, should we remove them from this article altogether? Possible wording: Sedna's 12,000-year orbit is so eccentric that it is only near enough to the Earth to be observed a small fraction of the time. This means that unless its discovery was a freak accident, there are probably a substantial population of objects roughly Sedna's diameter yet to be observed in its orbital region. I don't particularly endorse this alternative, however. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 02:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I listened to the lecture last week. I think I recall it saying 60 Sednas. I have also checked the new ref that says ~100 Sednas. I agree that they are both fairly consistent, but still uncertain. -- Kheider (talk) 02:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Reorganisation

This article has been massively expanded since it was featured to account for a vast amount of new information. However, some of the information has been difficult to place in the article's structure, and I am wondering how I might accommodate the more awkward paragraphs: namely the third paragraph in the lead of the Planet X section (about Pickering's Planet O) and the paragraph on Ketakar (placed in a footnote}. Perhaps this article would now be better split into two. Serendipodous 14:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

After a quick look. It is not really clear to me why are those parts awkward to add? I believe this article should look mainly from a historic perspective, and the clearest way might be: (1) Neptune was discovered, with all these initial errors; (2a) people thought of looking for more planets; (2b) especially because of the errors; (2c) some people actually proposed models considering these errors that lead to no planets (i.e. the note); (3a) the search & Pluto's discovery & its initial errors; (3b) people continued to look for other planets besides Pluto; meanwhile the masses were refined; (4) "questions" after the Voyager visit, and first new TNOs seen in the 90's; (5) "aftermath": 2006 and unlikelyhood of new planets (i.e. anything more than dwarf planets) and plutoids.
As for the split, what exactly were you thinking? Hope this helps.Nergaal (talk) 17:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking Planet X could stand on its own. But I suppose the topic still isn't big enough for two articles. Serendipodous 17:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
At 40k, this article seems in the ok range. I am not sure if a split would truly benefit anybody since there isn't quite that much stuff to be added if a split were to be done. Nergaal (talk) 03:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
My first thought is that I prefer a single well written (featured) article (Planets beyond Neptune) over a split of lesser articles (Planets beyond Neptune) and (Planet X). -- Kheider (talk) 13:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Future telescopic surveys

These surveys might discover planet-sized objects beyond Neptune: Pan-STARRS, LSST and the WISE mission.

I deleted this addition, since it was OR as written, but it might be a good idea to expand it, source it and put it back in. Serendipodous 18:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I've listed them in the see also section. The articles themselves discuss possibilities. 86.167.197.162 (talk) 11:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Inverted orbit path?

As a kid I had one of those Eyewitness Books, the one discussing the solar system. The section for Planet X showed a planet with an orbit that was nearly inverted (at least 80 degrees) when compared to the other planets, which are all more or less on the same horizontal plane (save for dwarf planet Pluto, which is tilted somewhat). Who put forth the claim of an inverted orbit? Does it have a name? I don't think its mentioned in the article. For what its worth, their illustration of the planet showed on about 35% larger than earth, and Mars-like in appearance: Rocky, reddish-brown. --Ragemanchoo82 (talk) 02:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It is/was a known fact the searches for Planet X were near the ecliptic plane of the solar system. So I am going to guess that your book was assuming that there could be a planet far from the ecliptic (ie., steeply inclined). Maybe someone else has a better guess. -- Kheider (talk) 06:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Planet X

Planet X is not accually real is it? Noone knoes but it could be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.228.17.32 (talk) 21:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

If it were ever found, then it wouldn't be Planet X anymore ;-) Serendipodous 03:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Depends if it is X as in Roman 10, or X as in "icks", alias "anonymous". There are for certain a few more bodies as large as Pluto, Eris and Sedna that we haven't discovered yet. But as for a planet as large as Mars, the signs are currently negative. There shouldn't exist a planet as large as Mars just outside the Kuiper cliff: the proposal of Lykawka et al. have been retracted by themselves. Alan Stern might however still propose one, but I'm not sure. Farther out, we don't know, but the farther out we go, the less is the probability that any planet might have formed there ... as far as we know today. ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 11:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I think I'm incorrect: Lykawka haven't retracted their proposals. I'll take a better look! ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 11:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I misread. The article here instead proposes a model that expands the currently popular Nice model and claims that a 0.3—0.7 Earths big outer planet in an orbit 80—85 AU from sun gives a very good explanation of the current distribution of the Trans-Neptunian objects. ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 17:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Mike Brown has done a good job of searching the northern skies from California (33N), but the Southern skies have not been searched very well and a Mercury mass (or larger) object could be hiding far from the ecliptic. -- Kheider (talk) 01:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Probability

I think the "Probability" section should be moved to the Sedna article, with maybe a one-sentence summary left here. After all, it is about finding planet-sized dwarf planets, not about finding a Planet X.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 12:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I think, should an Earth-sized dwarf planet be discovered, it would force a redefinition of planet, so I think it belongs here. But yes, that section could also go into the Sedna article (quite a few things could go into that article, actually; it needs to be seriously updated). Serendipodous 14:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Kuiper cliff explanation

The article claims that "a Mars-like planet in a circular orbit at 60 AU can be safely discounted; such an object would be so bright that it would have been discovered by now." The closest cited sources come to supporting that is: "No object at low eccentricity with semimajor axis beyond 50 AU has been detected so far, even though the present observing capabilities would allow an eventual detection."(Brunini) The source does not indicate that detection would be nearly certain by now if the object did exist, so I used a "Failed verification" template to tag the reference. User:Fartherred from 207.224.85.91 (talk) 01:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

See: A Search for Distant Solar System Bodies in the Region of Sedna Mike Brown's survey was "sensitive to Mars-sized bodies out to a distance of ~300AU" (page 3) -- Kheider (talk) 01:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
If you believe Mike Brown's survey is a suitable reference for the statement, please add it to the article. The current reference failed verification. 207.224.85.91 (talk) 02:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I have examined the reference given by Kheider. It refers to a search of 12,000 square degrees in extent. This is sufficient to cover an area 17.8 degrees on either side of the ecliptic. This is indeed sufficient to search for Sedna-like bodies as Sedna is inclined by only 12 degrees. However the statement in question refers to "a Mars-like planet in a circular orbit at 60 AU". It does not exclude bodies in orbits inclined by more than 18 degrees. To use Mike Brown's survey as a reference the statement should be modified to refer to bodies with an inclination of less than 18 degrees. The text in the reference by Lykawka refers to a hypothetical planet that should have acquired an inclined stable orbit (more than 100 AU; 20-40 degrees inclination), so inclinations of more than 18 degrees do not seem out of consideration for the context. 207.224.85.91 (talk) 04:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Page 2 (Observations) shows that Mike Browns 2007-2008 survey covered ±30° from the ecliptic. -- Kheider (talk) 04:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
IP is correct that no combination of all-sky surveys have yet published every last square degree of the 2pi. Give it time; there's 4 surveys running at the moment. Iridia (talk) 06:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
The statement in dispute was added by Ruslik0 at 07:54 hours on the 14th of July in 2008. At that time it refered to a slightly inclined orbit as would be supported if Mike Brown's survey had thouroughly covered the area within 18 degrees of the ecliptic. Instead it spreads its coverage over 30 degrees. At 07:11 hours on the 15th of July in 2008, Serendipodous removed the qualifications of slight inclination and near circular orbit. This edit made the statement more general and less supportable. The survey Kheider cites is sensitive to Mars-sized bodies out to about 300AU, but nothing on page 2&3 indicates that the survey was more than 12,000 square degrees in extent. It actually specifies a slightly smaller area, 11,786 square degrees. The surveyed area is claimed to lie within 30 degrees of the ecliptic but it does not claim to have completely surveyed the area within 30 degrees of the ecliptic. It gives a representative sampling of the area within 30 degrees of the ecliptic. It shows that Sedna-like objects are uncommon, but it does not rule out a Mars sized object at 100AU. There are 20,626 square degrees within 30 degrees of the ecliptic. The claimed 11,786 square degree area surveyed is only about 57.14% of the region. It is good work for its purpose but it does not support the statement in the article which is in dispute. As an example of the things that the survey can miss, it is noted on page 3 that the survey failed to detect Sedna. 207.224.85.91 (talk) 06:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I've redrafted it. Serendipodous 06:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The rewrite is an improvement. I want to note my misstatement. The paper "A Search for Distant Solar System Bodies in the Region of Sedna" by Schwamb, Brown, and Rabinowitz doesn't show that Sedna-like objects are uncommon; merely that Sedna-like objects in the observable portion of their orbit are uncommon. There might be some statement based on this reference that can go into the Sedna article. I might try to fit something in there. 207.224.85.91 (talk) 08:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

What discrepancies/irregularities?

Please elaborate on the discrepancies/irregularities in the orbits of Uranus and Neptune.

The orbital period of Uranus is 84 years. How does one notice irregularities in an orbit that takes so long to complete? - Ac44ck (talk) 07:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The orbital period of an object follows the rules laid out by Isaac Newton, regardless of its length, and so can be calculated from only a very small fraction of its orbit. If the orbit then fails to follow calculations, then either something must be disrupting it, the calculations were in error, or Newton was wrong. In the case of Neptune, it was disruption. In the case of Planet X, it was error. In the case of Vulcan, Newton was wrong. Serendipodous 10:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
More discussion at Discovery_of_Neptune#Irregularities_in_Uranus.27s_orbit. - Ac44ck (talk) 04:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Just Came Across This

Just came across this recent article discussing anomalies in the orbit of the moon and possible causes. The maths are beyond me, but it looks like a bona-fide scientific paper. Maybe someone with more astronomical knowledge than I possess could stitch it into the article in some relevant way. Thanks

http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.0212 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.37.108 (talk) 01:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Woah. So, let me see if I have Dr Lorio's argument straight. A transneptunian planet can cause noticeable changes to the orbit of our Moon from a distance of ~3 billion miles, but has no effect on the planets? Personally I'd need a LOT of corroboration before I decided to let that one in. But that's just me. Serendipodous 10:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think he's saying that a transneptunian planet is the most likely explanation (see the end of the article). And from my admittedly very limited knowledge, I doubt if the orbits of the planets can be measured with anything like the same accuracy as can that of the moon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.37.108 (talk) 23:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Iorio himself says that "the values for the physical and orbital parameters of such a hypothetical body required to obtain the right order of magnitude for de/dt are completely unrealistic." I see no need to add a claim that the paper itself debunks. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 15:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Front page April 30th 2012

This article is going to be featured on the front page tomorrow. I recommend giving it a look over before it runs. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:36, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Question

Aren't extrasolar planets "beyond Neptune"? I don't see any mention of them in the intro or see also sections. 24.64.168.161 (talk) 21:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Arguing that extrasolar planets are "beyond Neptune" is like saying that interstellar space is higher than Everest; true in one sense, meaningless in another. Serendipodous 22:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I always took it to be "Sol System planets beyond"... TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 01:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Slightly off-topic note

"Planet X disproved" is a quite legal construction in most languages, but for me the phrase is pretty comical — I imagine a planet, whose name is X, and a nosy scientist carefully explaining to that planet that it doesn't exist. I would prefer saying "All theories of a Planet X [are] disproved", inferring that the Planet X is a mind construct. However I don't propose a change, I just note that natural languages are very fuzzy in their distinction between thinking (f.ex. theories) and referred objects (f.ex. Planet X). In my fantasy-language, the meaning would become something like: "the notion of Planet X in the theory of Planet X refers to nothing, so the theory of Planet X has failed". Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 05:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow. The public really didn't take to this

It's rating has fallen a whole point since it appeared on the main page. I don't really know how to take that. Serendipodous 11:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I've got no idea what rating you're referring to, but I thought it was an interesting article 143.210.174.23 (talk) 14:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks :-) The rating is a box at the bottom of the article that allows the public to vote on the quality of an article. It averaged about 3 and a bit before. Now it's about 2 and a bit. So quite a few people must have voted it down. Serendipodous 17:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't see any such box. HumphreyW (talk) 00:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
It's at the very bottom of the page. Though it seems to have gone up again, so OK then. Serendipodous 09:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Nope. No such thing exists for me on any article, history or talk page. Perhaps you have enabled it in some way? HumphreyW (talk) 11:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Check out WP:AFT for more info. You may have it (and possible other awesome features) disabled. Or your browser may not support it, I suppose. But it's more likely that it's disabled, I would imagine. Wyatt Riot (talk) 14:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Mass limits

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 172.164.18.110 (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)

Vp113

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)

Lede

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?

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: http://www.space.com/448-problem-gravity-mission-probe-strange-puzzle.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.136.173 (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

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

Changed the placement within the text, as it was put in the middle of two paragraphs about Sedna. 87.54.144.210 (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

overlap

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

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

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

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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Planets beyond Neptune. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Planets beyond Neptune. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

"Planet Ten"

Is the newly proposed (2017) planet concerning minor planets near the Kuiper cliff (50AU) being not-in-plane, being dragged around by a Mars sized object, a planet that would satisfy the Kuiper cliff planet proposal? It seems like it should be a different object, and thus should be placed in a different section from "Kuiper Cliff" ? -- 70.51.45.76 (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Planets_beyond_Neptune/Archive_2&oldid=1142327713"