Talk:Planet Nine#rfctag

Is anyone’s still searching for Planet Nine or have they given up? Jehochman ^Talk 10:21, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

:This is a serious question. The article needs an update about recent efforts (perhaps). Jehochman ^Talk 10:28, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

:Still ongoing. Just no paper on it recently. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:28, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

::I see some Feb 2023 articles suggesting that it may be possible to search for heat signatures of P9 satellites. Is this worth adding? What about the proposed JWST survey? Jehochman ^Talk 10:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

:::What are you referring to as "the proposed JWST survey"?

:::I see [https://www.popsci.com/could-there-really-be-9th-planet-that-we-didnt-know-about/ one source] says "Jim Green, director of NASA’s Planetary Science Division ... is optimistic that if Planet X is out there, NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope, expected to launch into space in 2018, could find it. The large infrared telescope is Hubble’s successor. 'If these guys are right, we’re going to be looking at [Planet X] in 2018'”, but I'm pretty sure the author misunderstood Green. I've seen Mike Brown explain multiple times on Twitter that JWST's small field-of-view makes it worthless for finding Planet Nine, but if and when it is found by some wide-angle telescope like Subaru or Rubin, then a top priority will be pointing JWST at it to get a better look. Birdfern (talk) 00:33, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

[https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-3881/aceaf0/pdf Patryk Lakawka has a new paper out.] Serendi^podous 19:22, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

:This is a hypothesis discrete from Planet Nine. While it's similar in that it's a hypothesized planet beyond Neptune explaining the orbits of objects like Sedna, it's different enough that it's considered a hypothesis entirely separate. See the last paragraph on page 3. 134340Goat (talk) 15:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Vera C. Rubin Observatory should be operational by late 2024. Wait until it has collected data for a few years, then ask again. Brown himself has said that this was the ultimate test of the hypothesis.[https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/to-planet-9-and-beyond-an-interview-with-mike-brown] It looks to me like the interest in the search for P9 has decreased considerably, and only Rubin can really change things right now.

To quote Brown again ([https://www.quora.com/Which-has-been-the-greatest-distance-ever-between-the-Earth-and-V774104-as-it-is-currently-known-by-astronomers ?]): Things happen slowly in the Kuiper belt. Renerpho (talk) 22:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

:{{re|Jehochman}} Konstantin Batygin has just posted a thread on Twitter/X where he discusses the new Lykawka & Ito paper,[https://twitter.com/kbatygin/status/1702441937712591293] and announces that he is working on a new Planet Nine paper:[https://twitter.com/kbatygin/status/1702441963557917054]{{block indent|1=So what's next? Together w/ Gabe Pichierri, a postdoc in my group at @Caltech, we are working on the next generation of P9 models with an eye towards the wealth of data soon to come from Vera Rubin Obs. While I won't share specifics yet, exciting results are on the horizon.}}Probably predictions what exactly Vera Rubin's limits should be, and how likely it is to find P9 (if it exists). We have something to look forward to in the coming months, and in anticipation of first light at Vera Rubin! Renerpho (talk) 07:58, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

::There’s also a new paper [https://arxiv.org/pdf/2304.00576.pdf] that surprisingly finds that the MOND gravity model could explain the observed clustering. The clustering would be the effect not of a planet but of the galactic core under a revised model of gravity. Once this paper is published somewhere, I think it definitely needs to be added to the article because it’s a major new explanation for the observed phenomena. Jehochman ^Talk 00:42, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

:::{{re|Jehochman}} That Brown&Mathur paper, which was uploaded to Arxiv in April, has to share the credit with Migaszewski's, which was accepted for publication in MNRAS in July and uploaded to Arxiv in March.[https://arxiv.org/pdf/2303.13339.pdf] Quote from Brown&Mathur: "Accepted at the Astronomical Journal. [...] Complementary to the findings of Migaszewski"[https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv230400576J/abstract] Renerpho (talk) 06:28, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

So, I'm kind of busy with school and work. Is there a volunteer who will update the article with the MOND theory? This seems important. Jehochman ^Talk 02:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

::which theory is the below?

:{{quote|An alternative “flavor” of the Planet Nine hypothesis that Brown concedes is that it’s actually [https://www.vice.com/en/article/ak38yk/scientists-are-close-to-finding-planet-9 | a much bigger, much more distant planet] sitting somewhere in the Oort Cloud some 3.2 lightyears away.}} 1.38.103.24 (talk) 05:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

:Simply another iteration of a trans-Neptunian planet hypothesis, of which there are many. ArkHyena (talk) 06:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

::In the section about MOND as an alternative explanation, why are we citing the paper by Katherine Brown and Harsh Mathur,[https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-3881/acef1e/pdf] but not the one by Cezary Migaszewski?[https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/525/1/805/7231820]

::This is a strange situation of two researchers apparently coming up with the same idea at around the same time, seemingly independently. As I noted previously, Migaszewski's paper was uploaded to arxiv a month before Brown&Mathur's. Even though [https://people.hamilton.edu/documents/KateBrownCV.pdf] states that the Brown&Mathur paper was in submission in 2022, the arxiv version of that paper credits Migaszewski,[https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023AJ....166..168B/abstract] who in turn cites their arxiv preprint in his final paper. The final Brown&Mathur publication doesn't mention him. Renerpho (talk) 03:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Headbomb (alt) (talk) 15:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Orbit of possible planet X https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.18170 predicts a closer planet with a~230 au, and an apparent magnitude bright enough that I would expect that it would have already been spotted unless it is currently crossing the galactic plane. Agmartin (talk) 21:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Is the below included in the main article

[https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/article/77/11/22/3318192/What-s-up-with-Planet-Nine-The-question-of-whether What’s up with Planet Nine]

[https://www.astronomy.com/science/does-planet-nine-exist/ Does Planet Nine exist?]

[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/if-planet-nine-exists-well-find-it-soon/ We May Be on the Brink of Finding the Real Planet Nine]

27.5.121.121 (talk) 13:02, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

:The article already has a great deal of content based on the work of Batygin and Brown. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:53, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

::What I have given above needs to go into both Effects_of_Planet_Nine_on_trans-Neptunian_objects & Planet_Nine#Dynamics:_How_Planet_Nine_modifies_the_orbits_of_ETNOs 49.206.100.34 (talk) 08:28, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

:::one more link on same topic: https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.11594

:::— Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.38.102.99 (talk) 10:29, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Please remember that WP:COPYVIO applies to talk pages, too. Long quotes should be avoided when possible. Renerpho (talk) 21:54, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::something like the below can be added:

:::::Neptune tries to keep rocky bodies away from Solar System but #PlanetNine keeps flinging some of them back in & score goals past the goalie Neptune. It'd be a big surprise (5σ level) if it doesn't exist

:::::[https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/ad3cd2 Primary ref]

:::::[https://www.space.com/planet-9-cometary-bodies-neptune-solar-system?utm_content=space.com&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=socialflow Secondary ref]

:::::Tertiary refs — given at the top. 2406:7400:BB:310C:AC53:EB2B:34F6:69E5 (talk) 15:42, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::That 2024 paper is already referenced in the article. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:06, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::is the 5σ confidence level mentioned? That makes it the strongest evidence so far... 27.5.104.55 (talk) 16:39, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::The primary counter argument to P9 simulations has been related to data selection. The confidence level does not address this aspect. A confidence level is only useful when comparing two scenarios against an agreed data set. Anyway the article has an entire paragraph devoted to the 2024 paper which could be compared to the source. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:08, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

The paper that we currently use for orbital and physical characteristics posits orbital elements, by their own admission, wildly at variance with Brown and Batygin. Does that mean it isn't technically Planet Nine? Serendi^podous 17:15, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:No as "planet nine" would be the 9th planet in the solar system. Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::As Brown and Batygin have repeatedly stated, their hypothesis isn't about any ninth planet, it's specifically about any planet that can explain the alleged alignment of orbits, and the existence of certain trans-Neptunian objects, specifically sednoids and those with high inclinations. If someone finds a planet with very different orbital elements that explains the same things, that counts as a Planet Nine. If someone finds a super-Earth in a distant orbit that can't explain them, that's not Planet Nine. Renerpho (talk) 17:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::But no one has found Planet nine yet. So what the "correct" number? Serendi^podous 19:52, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::::"Correct number"? Renerpho (talk) 19:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Why is the paper we use more accurate than Brown or Baygin's estimates? Serendi^podous 21:57, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::{{re|Serendipodous}} You mean how we choose between Brown&Batygin's 2021 estimate, and the Siraj et al's [https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ad98f6 2025 estimate]? I think we're using the Siraj paper because it is looking for the same thing, but is more recent (having access to more data), and claims to correct problems with, or be more accurate than, the Brown&Batygin paper. But I suppose this is up to debate.

::::::Whether or not we decide to use the numbers from the old Brown&Batygin paper, or from the latest comprehensive study about the subject, this is not a question of "ownership". The two papers are trying to solve the same problem. Renerpho (talk) 22:48, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::As I imply, they are talking about the 9th planet, not the name planet nine. Slatersteven (talk) 20:04, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::::There isn't really a single set of orbital elements that marks P9 since this is a purely hypothetical object and its orbital elements are fundamentally extrapolatory (and Brown et al. have changed it over the years!) but I believe it can broadly be agreed that P9 must be a massive planet on an orbit capable of shepherding ETNOs into the clustering Brown et al. argues for.

::::Re: the Phan et al. paper, assuming the feature observed is a genuine candidate object within the Solar System (frankly quite doubtful), its distance of ~500{{ndash}}700 AU{{mdash}}at significant odds with the orbital elements generally proposed for P9{{mdash}}means that this object probably shouldn't be called a P9 candidate. ArkHyena (they/any) 20:08, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{re|ArkHyena}} Regarding the Phan et al. paper, see Talk:Planet_Nine#A_Search_for_Planet_Nine_with_IRAS_and_AKARI_Data for why it definitely shouldn't be called a P9 candidate (its existence would categorically rule out Planet Nine, according to Mike Brown). Renerpho (talk) 20:11, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:The name of the article should be a consequence of the sources that justify its notability. Conversely any reliable source that claims to be about "planet nine" is on topic. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

{{re|21.Andromedae}} I had missed that the Phan et al. paper [https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.17288] had been accepted for publication. I think we should mention the constraints they set for their search (distance 500-700 AU, mass 7-17 Earth masses), because there is no overlap with the Planet Nine as presented in our article (aphelion 370±30 AU, mass 4.4±1.1 Earth masses, per our info box). They are using an outdated model from one of Brown&Batygin's old papers, that I believe they no longer consider possible. The candidate they found is outside the currently accepted range for possible Planet Nine orbits, and an object as currently proposed would have resulted in a false negative (wouldn't have been found). Compare the responses like at [https://www.science.org/content/article/astronomers-searching-planet-nine-find-possible-hints-different-planet], and the comments from Mike Brown himself, [https://bsky.app/profile/plutokiller.com/post/3lnqm2ymbd22r] quote: "I have a couple of thoughts about the new paper the finds a candidate Planet Nine in some old data. First, it is difficult to tell how seriously to take this because a false alarm probability is never discussed, and second, if it is real, it is not Planet Nine." This is followed by a whole thread of problems with the paper. We should mention those issues. Renerpho (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:From the science.org article: "the planet would have an orbit tilted roughly 120° from the plane of the Solar System. [...] If Phan and Goto’s signal really is a far-off planet, its existence would ironically disprove the original Planet Nine, as the two planets could not coexist without making each other’s orbits unstable, Brown adds." Renerpho (talk) 18:00, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:: We should call it planet 9i. Jehochman ^Talk 01:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{re|Jehochman}} Imaginary and perpendicular to the real one? That only makes sense if we know that planet 9 is real. Renerpho (talk) 01:13, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::::They're both hypothetical and perpendicular to each other, and at most just one of them might exist. Is there a way to represent that with bra-ket notation? Jehochman ^Talk 01:48, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Could this be a rogue planet that got captured "very recently"? 49.206.101.172 (talk) 18:14, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I mean... sure? It could be that, among a hundred other, more likely, things. Renerpho (talk) 18:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I think it should be called Planet Novem / Planet IX, since like Planet 9, it’s a potential ninth planet (though we all know what the actual ninth planet is). As for an official name, I think it should be called Athena (I do know that there already exists an asteroid named Athene), because the discovery of this planet would expand our knowledge about how the outer planets got to their current positions in the solar system. Pluto2181930 (talk) 14:46, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::{{re|Pluto2181930}} You can personally call it whatever you like. If you're suggesting that the article should be renamed, I see little chance of that happening. Renerpho (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I was just thinking of a name they could call it to avoid confusion with the original Planet 9 Pluto2181930 (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::The Phan paper, entitled "A Search for Planet Nine with IRAS and AKARI Data" is clearly about the article topic "Planet Nine". A self-publish post or a quote in a e-zine by a competitor does exclude this source as notable to the topic. If we want to characterize Mike Brown as a subject expert, which I think is reasonable, then the Brown quotes are clear evidence of the notability of the Phan paper. For a neutral point of view any criteria based on Brown quotes makes the paper notable.

::There may be other reasons the paper is not notable for the topic, but what ever criteria is used must be applied consistently.

::Since "Planet Nine" is hypothetical, it has no defining orbital characteristics. There is no "real" one. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:59, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Imo, this is relevant & needs to go in:

:::{{quote|However, IRAS and AKARI data alone are insufficient to determine a precise orbit so there will need to be follow-up observations to confirm the candidate and fully determine its orbit using DECam, which can detect faint moving objects within about an hour of exposure, aiding in understanding the solar system's evolution and structure.}}

:::From [https://phys.org/news/2025-04-hint-planet.html is this the first hint of planet nine] 49.206.101.172 (talk) 18:12, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::::The "need for followup observations" is never notable for an encyclopedia. We summarize knowledge, not the infinity of ignorance. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:20, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I think its notability is not in question. The question is how to present it factually and neutrally (IMO the version I previously removed from the article did not). Renerpho (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::The first thing is to wait for publication, preprints are not reliable sources and the published version often significantly differs from the preprint. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::@Renerpho I guess by "its notability" you mean the Phan paper. On this I agreed earlier. My "never notable" post was not about the Phan paper, but about the claim that the sentence including "need for followup observations" is relevant. That sentence is not relevant. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Agreed on both counts, and I also agree with Headbomb in principle. I suggested already that we should wait for publication (although that was before I learned that the paper had been accepted by the journal). Renerpho (talk) 18:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Based on the Acknowledgements and the date the preprint was posted (11 months after the oral presentation), I guess this is the accepted version, but waiting is also fine. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:46, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:I would like to remind everyone that the whole paper is only based on 2 data points, one from IRAS in 1984, the other AKARI in 2007 (23 years later). The first one is very fuzzy, and the second one a little less. Both sources of infrared that don't appear in the other picture could really be anything. There is a small chance that it could be a planet, but there is a bigger chance that that these 2 events are completely unrelated. Now, in 2025, 18 years later than the last observation, we could easily predict in what area of the sky the hypothetical planet should be found, and have JWST take a snapshot. And if there is something there that isn't in the 2007 picture, then and only then, we may have a candidate worth talking about. Until then, these are 2 unidentified sources of infrared. Just because a paper has been accepted for publication doesn't mean that we have something real. It just means that there is a small chance that we found something. Dhrm77 (talk) 15:39, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.15806 118.148.70.88 (talk) 07:32, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:Not related to planet nine. Slatersteven (talk) 11:32, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::Yes it is. Is there information on whether it fits the clustering pattern? Serendi^podous 14:25, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::How is a drawf planet a "super-Earth-sized planet"? Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::::This object isn't a P9 candidate. It is, however, relevant because its orbit does not fit the predicted clustering of distant Sedna-like objects that P9 would produce. The preprint's abstract briefly outlines this. ArkHyena (they/any) 16:12, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::The paper also clearly shows that the Siraj et al. (2024) P9 (4.4 +/- 1.1 Earth masses) is incompatible with the existance of the object—it would have been ejected in a billion years. 202.36.179.71 (talk) 01:29, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Yes, and that's probably the most interesting aspect of the paper. Still, it's worth waiting for the peer review, or at the very least for a response from Siraj, Brown, or someone else from the "pro-P9 camp". The same is true for the paper by Bannister et al.[https://bsky.app/profile/astrokiwi.bsky.social/post/3lmtqyhqwws2d] about 2023 KQ14... Renerpho (talk) 02:42, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::That is why we have see Also's, so we can link to related topics. Slatersteven (talk) 08:36, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::{{re|Slatersteven}} What do you want to link to? {{mpl|2023 KQ|14}} does not have its own article (and currently shouldn't have one, I think; compare Talk:Sednoid#2023_KQ14). Adding {{mpl|2017 OF|201}} to the "see also" section is a good idea though (I'll do that). Renerpho (talk) 09:36, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:Citation of this work needs to wait for peer review and publication. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:09, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::I expect a Sky&Telescope article about this object (and a second one, 2023 KQ14) next week. Renerpho (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:I think it raises the possibility P9 isn't here anymore, but was ejected billion years ago... 21 Andromedae (talk) 21:51, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::Are there any sources that discuss that possibility? I think the alignment that led to the hypothesis would quickly vanish once P9 is gone. If an alignment is observed, P9 needs to be there today to cause it. Renerpho (talk) 22:59, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::The not-yet-published paper above discussed the impact of their newly discovered object on undetected planet hypothesis, along the lines of "adds a significant new constraint". Johnjbarton (talk) 23:05, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::::The [https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-news/another-dwarf-planet-in-our-solar-system/ Sky & Telescope article] I mentioned, which has been published yesterday, doesn't talk about 2023 KQ14, but it does include a statement from Konstantin Batygin about 2017 OF201, quote: {{tq|[The simulations show] this object is strongly interacting with Neptune [...] The object is unstable, so it means virtually nothing for the Planet 9 hypothesis.}} Renerpho (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I [reverted an [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Planet_Nine&diff=prev&oldid=1292947975 edit] by @Scu ba about OF201 which cited the Sky & Telescope but failed to mention Batygin's reaction. These sightings are too new for encyclopedic conclusions. See WP:NOTNEWS. Johnjbarton (talk) 21:14, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I feel like this is now a "he-said she-said" argument. Cheng is saying that the orbit is stable, therefore Planet Nine is impossible otherwise it would have ejected it, while Batygin argues that it was ejected from another orbit into this orbit by Neptune and Planet Nine is going to eject it from this orbit in the near (in astronomic terms) future because that is the only way that his argument still holds up.

::::::Reverting all mention of {{mp|2017 OF|201}} isn't the right way to go about this. @Johnjbarton.

::::::Scuba 21:34, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::{{re|Scu ba}} I just reverted your attempt to add it back again. I'm with Johnjbarton here. Let's give it some time. Renerpho (talk) 22:28, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I feel like it should at least be mentioned. What was wrong with listing it as a "criticism" instead of a "refutation" I feel like that keeps the door open enough. Scuba 22:28, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::{{re|Scu ba}} Okay, but giving it its own "criticism" section is too much. Also, the Sky&Telescope article didn't just include a "refutation" from Batygin, but also Cheng's reply to that "refutation". All in two or three sentences, so we don't have much to go on. If there was a paper about it, and a response from Batygin in the form of a proper paper, this would be easier to cover properly. Renerpho (talk) 22:34, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::It's also not like this isn't the first object found to counter the planet nine theory. There should be a whole section filled with subsections about these objects. Scuba 22:37, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::The same argument can be, and has been, made about the IRAS/AKARI story (compare the previous talk page section). This is unpublished and new, and may in time fade into obscurity -- or not, in which case we can cover it. Renerpho (talk) 22:38, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::I don't think having a section full of individual objects that may or may not challenge/constrain the hypothesis is a good idea. Those claims don't become notable just because someone makes them. For cases that "stick", it may be different, but this is too new. Renerpho (talk) 22:43, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Mike Brown has [https://bsky.app/profile/plutokiller.com/post/3lq3flbc37s2a already said the same thing.] 118.149.79.34 (talk) 01:20, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::NY Times has a great article on the report:

::::::https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/29/science/dwarf-planet-nine-discovery.html

::::::On the one hand the article reflects the uncertainty discussed above. On the other hand the article adds notability. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:13, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::@Scu ba Please stop. There is no consensus to add this topic. Johnjbarton (talk) 21:10, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::This is Wikipedia, you don't need approval from committees to include a New York Times article. If you feel the New York Times isn't a reliable source, take that up with perennial sources, not here. Scuba 21:12, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::The New York Times is a generally reliable news source. However this topic is being discussed here there is no consensus. The next step for advocates like yourself is to make the case that the topic should be covered even if the primary source is not peer reviewed. Per WP:NOTNEWS I would remain against the addition. Johnjbarton (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Is the NYT article worth getting a subscription for? Serendi^podous 19:37, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{re|Serendipodous}} I can email it to you if you like... Renerpho (talk) 19:44, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

:That's not a question related to the content of this article. I'll give you a suggestion which is also not related: you may request a copy of the article via the wikipedia Resource exchange. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:45, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Is this Nibiru, Babylonian and Sumerians think so. Also, according to Zecharia Sitchin, this planet DOES exist

and it is a giant planet. Gage3491 (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

No, they didn't. They didn't even known there were more than five. And Sitchin was wrong. Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 21:15, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:Actually, They did and Stichin might be right because in 1983, the Infared Astronomy Satellite (IRAS) found something beyond Pluto that could be 7-10 Earth masses and moving very slowly. In 2006, it was found by AKARI and it moved 47 arcminutes in 23 years. This means it is currently at 700 AU and is moving at 3 arcminutes per year.

:The Vera C. Rubin Observatory will find the current position of Planet X and confirm it’s existence. Gage3491 (talk) 23:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::This Talk page is for discussing the article, not for discussing the topic. If you have sources for this information please post them. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:10, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::Even if the IRAS/AKARI object is a trans-Neptunian planet (and there is a heavy emphasis on if), there is no reason to believe it even comes close to the four giant planets, much less the inner Solar System. The idea that ancient civilizations could've identified and seen such an object with the naked eye is... laughable at best.

::This is why we exclude WP:FRINGE views such as conspiracy theories and other pseudoscience from Wikipedia. Anyone can claim they have some esoteric knowledge about the Solar System, but such claims have about as much merit as fairytales. ArkHyena (they/any) 03:13, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:Do any RS make this link? Slatersteven (talk) 09:28, 12 June 2025 (UTC)