What would be the effects of Nibiru on the asteroid belt?

[Jairo]

If it existed and had a perihelion close to Earth, would it mess with the ressonance with Jupiter? Disperse the asteroid belt? Etc?

[NEOWatcher]

Without knowing it's trajectory, mass, speed, etc.*, there's no way of knowing.

*That's of course the wild assumption that it even exists.

[captain swoop]

Is this a conspiracy?

[Bozola]

IF it existed, and since you use the word "perihelion", implying a solar orbit, means that if it was of a significant size we would have already detected it's effects by the orbital dynamics of all the other bodies in the solar system. Since we do not, this would mean that "Nibiru" is far too small to be of any grand consequence other than the usual issues that Earth orbit crossing asteroids have of wanting to fall on your head.

It would destroy all life on Earth unless Bruce Willis stops it.

[Bozola]

Is this a conspiracy?

"Nibiru" is Akkadian for "conspiracy".

[Jairo]

I know every conspiracist might have his own idea of Nibiru, but I considered an often seen version: equal or bigger than Earth, orbit of 3,600 years and perihelion between Mars and Jupiter.

[Kinetic]

I know every conspiracist might have his own idea of Nibiru, but I considered an often seen version: equal or bigger than Earth, orbit of 3,600 years and perihelion between Mars and Jupiter.

Surely if it had a perihelion between Mars and Jupiter that would put it's orbit in the same plane as the rest of the planets? I'm pretty sure orbital period of 3600 years would give it a massive eccentricity forcing it across the paths of pretty much every other planet in the Solar System, yet there seems to have been no interaction. Conservation of angular momentum?

[Van Rijn]

If it existed and had a perihelion close to Earth, would it mess with the ressonance with Jupiter? Disperse the asteroid belt? Etc?

From Mike Brown's blog:

First, if this planet were out there as described we would simply have seen it by now. We haven’t. Being the person who has been doing the looking, I find this argument particularly compelling. Second, if the planet had the orbit that is ascribed to it, it would only last for about a million years before it came too close to Jupiter and got ejected out of the solar system.

(Mike Brown is the astronomer who found Eris, among other things.)

[Starfury]

From 2012hoax.org:

Niburu's impossible orbit

Nibiru's proposed orbit would be highly elliptical. So highly elliptical that it is for all intents and purposes a straight line, out and back. We know this because a simple mathematical relationship exists between the period and the length of the semi-major axis of the ellipse.

Kepler's Laws

German mathematician and astronomer Johannes Kepler (1571–1630) discovered three laws of planetary motion. They are:

1. "The orbit of every planet is an ellipse with the sun at a focus."
2. "A line joining a planet and the sun sweeps out equal areas during equal intervals of time."
3. "The square of the orbital period of a planet is directly proportional to the cube of the semi-major axis of its orbit."

Kepler's Laws applied to Nibiru

1. Since all planets orbit in ellipses with the Sun at one focus, Nibiru must go around the Sun, not just through the orbital paths of the planets[6].
2. All planets sweep out equal areas in equal time intervals, so Nibiru must move very slowly at it's aphelion, or furthest point from the Sun, and very fast at it's perihelion, or closest point[6].
3. The square of the orbital period of a planet is directly proportional to the cube of the semi-major axis of its orbit. Since Nibiru's period is specified as 3,600 years, we can use Kepler's third law to determine something about its orbit[6].

Kepler's third law can be expressed as:

a^3 = p^2

where a is the length of the semi-major axis in astronomical units (AU) and p is the period, in years. Applying a little middle-school algebra to this, we get:

a = \sqrt[3]{(p^2)}

So, assuming that perihelion is at or near Earth's orbit (since it is supposed to come close to us, or even hit us), the distance d from the sun at aphelion is going to be 2a - 1 (twice the semi-major axis, minus 1 AU). Adding this to our formula gives us:

d = 2\left(\sqrt[3]{(p^2)}\right) -1

Substituting our period (3600 years) gives us:

d = 2\left(\sqrt[3]{(3600^2)}\right) -1

d = 2\left(\sqrt[3]{12960000}\right) -1

d = 2(234.892058) -1

d = 469.784116 -1

d = 468.784116

In other words, given a 3,600 year orbit that brings it to within 1 AU of the sun (the area of Earth's orbit) the far end of the orbit must be 469 AU out from the sun.

Just as a comparison point, Pluto is on average about 39.5 AU away from the Sun. It's year is about 248 earth years long. If we plug 248 into equation (2) above, we get 39.47 AU. We can see that the formula works.

At nearly 470 AU, the gravity of the sun is negligible, almost non-existent. So as a result, Nibiru must be traveling close to the Sun's escape velocity when it comes within 1 AU of it. At a distance of 1 AU, the Sun's escape velocity is about 42km/s, so this is the speed at which Nibiru should be traveling (or a hair under it) in 2012. In comparison, the Earth's orbital velocity is a bit under 30km/s, Venus' is about 35km/s and Mercury's is 47.8. Nibiru would be whipping around the Sun nearly as quickly as Mercury.

Unstable Orbit

The orbit described above would be highly unstable. A highly elliptical orbit is unstable because it will suffer drastically from the slightest perturbation - Jupiter's gravity would probably be enough to send Nibiru spiraling off to who knows where. Pluto's orbit is stabilized by Neptune, as Pluto is locked into a 2:3 orbital resonance with Neptune. The maths behind multiple body problems are nightmarish to sort out because they have no closed solutions (the objects all affect each other to such a degree that the orbits gradually precess), so professional astronomers use computers to perform these calculations. But you should understand this: As much as the fictional Nibiru would pull on other planets, those planets would also pull on Nibiru. With a long, thin ellipse as described, even the slightest nudge from the gravity of another object, even if that object is considerably smaller than Nibiru, would have a dramatic effect on Nibiru's orbit.

Nibiru undetected

In the last few years, the news has been full of new planets discovered around other stars. Usually these are discovered by the observed light curve from the star where the planet partially eclipses the star, or by the motion of the star as the planet causes it to wobble. Very recently we actually visually detected a planet orbiting Fomalhaut. We can see distant objects in our own solar system which would be much dimmer than Nibiru. Remember that Nibiru is large, supposedly earth-sized or larger. Some claim that it is in orbit around a 'dark star', which would be even larger.

Even though we can detect sub-stellar objects, and now, even planets around other stars, why can't we find Nibiru?

A devastating analysis, if you ask me.

[A.DIM]

...
In other words, given a 3,600 year orbit that brings it to within 1 AU of the sun (the area of Earth's orbit) ...

I think if you're going to utilize Sitchin's 3600yr orbit for Nibiru, you should also acknowledge that it isn't said to come as close as one AU. Instead its perhelion is alleged to be some 3AU, near the asteroid belt.
Moreover, if you're drawing on Sitchin as original source material for these claims you should know Nibiru isn't said to be returning in 2012.

Even though we can detect sub-stellar objects, and now, even planets around other stars, why can't we find Nibiru?

Do we know where to look?

If one reads this paper (pdf) one might realize that a wide binary solar companion would not necessarily have been detected by now. As stated in the paper, IRAS could have picked it up (some say it did) but even still it would not have been perceived as a solar companion.
As I understand it, its proper motion would need be identified.

[JayUtah]

...

I think if you're going to utilize Sitchin's 3600yr orbit for Nibiru, you should also acknowledge that it isn't said to come as close as one AU. Instead its perhelion is alleged to be some 3AU, near the asteroid belt.

Then perhaps you'd be so good as to reparameterize Starfury's correct orbital model and show that a perihelion of 3 AU (as opposed to 1 AU) materially affects his outcome -- specifically that it materially alters the orbital eccentricity so as to avoid the instability he mentions.

Moreover, if you're drawing on Sitchin as original source material for these claims you should know Nibiru isn't said to be returning in 2012.

Straw man. Starfury does not mention Sitchin. There are plenty of Nibiru-believers such as Burak Eldem who propose a 2012 return date and a roughly 3,600-year orbital period. The debate is about Nibiru, not about Sitchin.

If one reads this paper (pdf) one might realize that a wide binary solar companion would not necessarily have been detected by now.

Straw man. If one reads the paper, one discovers that a wide-binary companion which displays two specific consequential properties of interest to those researchers may be in the IRAS database but may not have been recognized as such. That is by no means proof that any wide-binary companion would be undetectable in general, or that a wide-binary companion of the characteristics analyzed by Starfury would escape detection.

[Don J]

The explanation about why the Sun's companion (if any) may be hard to detect ?

Sun's Nemesis Pelted Earth with Comets, Study Suggests

http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...am-100311.html

[Bozola]

Nemisis ain't the same as Nibiru. 25,000 AU is not a perihelion "close to Earth".

[Van Rijn]

Nemesis has the advantage of at least being physically possible, though the evidence is lacking. A point not mentioned in the space.com article: Sedna, according to Brown, was likely perturbed by something long ago, but that doesn't mean that it must be a present solar companion.

[Van Rijn]

I think if you're going to utilize Sitchin's 3600yr orbit for Nibiru, you should also acknowledge that it isn't said to come as close as one AU. Instead its perhelion is alleged to be some 3AU, near the asteroid belt.

I get an eccentricity of about 0.9872 instead of 0.995744 for an orbit with a 3600 year period that comes within three AU of the sun. For both, the eccentricity is pretty close to one . . . which would be parabolic, not an elliptical orbit, meaning the object wouldn't be held by the sun. That's another way to say it's unstable: It doesn't take much perturbation to get it over the edge.

I ran this through gravity simulator (eccentricity as above, semi major axis 234.89) including the planets. The period of the orbit varied dramatically (sometimes much shorter, sometimes much longer) , and in a few dozen orbits Nibiru was on its way out of the solar system.

[eburacum45]

So we can safely say that Sitchin's figures are bunk. But seeing as he was a/ not an astronomer, and b/ pulled the figures more-or-less out of thin air, that should not really be a surprise.

[neilzero]

Two or three Earth mass dipping briefly into the asteroid belt at 3600 year intervals, will disrupt many asteroids very slightly, perhaps two into orbits that would threaten Earth. I can say two safely as tiny asteroids don't threaten, and odds are no medium or large asteroids would have their orbits altered by important amounts. That said there is a million to a trillion = slight possibility that Ceres will hit Earth a year or more after the perihelion of Nibiru, if Nibiru has any reality.
We should have detected Nibiru a year or more ago, if it has a slightly larger diameter than Earth, and will reach perihelion in 2012 in the asteroid belt. It should presently be visable with rather puny amature telescopes, even if it matches the least reflective of light of the darkest body we have found. All educated guesses. Please tell me if I'm way off. Neil

[ravens_cry]

I get an eccentricity of about 0.9872 instead of 0.995744 for an orbit with a 3600 year period that comes within three AU of the sun. For both, the eccentricity is pretty close to one . . . which would be parabolic, not an elliptical orbit, meaning the object wouldn't be held by the sun. That's another way to say it's unstable: It doesn't take much perturbation to get it over the edge.

I ran this through gravity simulator (eccentricity as above, semi major axis 234.89) including the planets. The period of the orbit varied dramatically (sometimes much shorter, sometimes much longer) , and in a few dozen orbits Nibiru was on its way out of the solar system.

You do realize what this means don't you?
It means the universe must be less then 108,000 years old, or Nibiru would be out of the solar system!

[Hungry4info]

I am forced to disagree with some of the statements presented here.

Surely if it had a perihelion between Mars and Jupiter that would put it's orbit in the same plane as the rest of the planets?

No. Inclination is one of the six ways we define an orbit. An orbit can be inclined to the plane of the planetary system, have a perihelion near the sun, an aphelion much more distant, and not cross the orbits of any planets (multiple long-period comets being a great examples).

Even though we can detect sub-stellar objects, and now, even planets around other stars, why can't we find Nibiru?

Not necessarily a fair comparison. Exoplanets are found through a method that would not be applicable to a hypothetical Nibiru. As A.DIM noted, the visual detection of Fomalhaut b was greatly assisted by knowing where in the sky to look.

[Tenshu]

Not necessarily a fair comparison. Exoplanets are found through a method that would not be applicable to a hypothetical Nibiru. As A.DIM noted, the visual detection of Fomalhaut b was greatly assisted by knowing where in the sky to look.

So...what then? Do you believe Nibiru exists? A planet supposed to be as big as jupiter or possibly bigger should've been detected by now in some form if it was going to show up in less than two years.

[slang]

So...what then?

So... nothing? Just because someone notes that a particular argument on one side of a discussion may not be a very good one, doesn't mean he automatically agrees with the other side of the discussion.

[Kinetic]

I am forced to disagree with some of the statements presented here.


No. Inclination is one of the six ways we define an orbit. An orbit can be inclined to the plane of the planetary system, have a perihelion near the sun, an aphelion much more distant, and not cross the orbits of any planets (multiple long-period comets being a great examples).
.

He said specifically that it has a perihelion between Mars and Jupiter, it also has to come close enough to the Earth to affect us and it has to orbit the sun. These 'fixed' points limit the extent of it's inclination.

[JayUtah]

...

Inclination is one of the six ways we define an orbit. An orbit can be inclined to the plane of the planetary system...

True. The major axis of the orbit would have to lie in the ecliptic plane in order for the perihelion to lie between Mars and Jupiter, but the actual inclination of the orbit may vary considerably. The problem then becomes determining such an orbit that manages to evade detection yet achieves all the destructive goals of Nibiru.

...(multiple long-period comets being a great examples).

Yes, a number of them have been detected despite their small size and oddly oriented orbits. Hence it doesn't make sense to suggest that Nibiru must be undetectable because it may lie outside the ecliptic.

Exoplanets are found through a method that would not be applicable to a hypothetical Nibiru. As A.DIM noted, the visual detection of Fomalhaut b was greatly assisted by knowing where in the sky to look.

Fomalhaut b was discovered by largely the same method as Neptune was discovered in our solar system: by using observable gravitational perturbations in known objects to predict the presence of a nearby planetary mass, then to confirm that prediction visually. That method works fine on a Jupiter-sized planet 25 LYs away, and it works fine on a Neptune-sized planet a few AU away. It ought to work exceptionally well on an object now inside our solar system and larger than our largest planet.

Show us the perturbations.

The notion that it would be invisible or hard to detect based on the non-use of techniques designed to narrow or expedite a visual search for non-mythical objects remains a straw man. Yes we do indeed employ indirect techniques to narrow the search, but that's because it's prudent to do so, not because discovery (intentional or accidental) is unlikely otherwise.

[A.DIM]

I think if you're going to utilize Sitchin's 3600yr orbit for Nibiru, you should also acknowledge that it isn't said to come as close as one AU. Instead its perhelion is alleged to be some 3AU, near the asteroid belt.

Then perhaps you'd be so good as to reparameterize Starfury's correct orbital model and show that a perihelion of 3 AU (as opposed to 1 AU) materially affects his outcome -- specifically that it materially alters the orbital eccentricity so as to avoid the instability he mentions.

Hi Jay,

Nibiru is also said to be inclined to the ecliptic some 30deg.
Would this materially affect Starfury's model?
I don't know.
However, only recently have we observed a planetary system most like that proposed by Sitchin: Perturbed Planets Outside of the Plane. And while this system is "on the precipice of stability, I'm unconvinced we can say with any certitude what range of orbital eccentricities are possible.

Moreover, if you're drawing on Sitchin as original source material for these claims you should know Nibiru isn't said to be returning in 2012.

Straw man. Starfury does not mention Sitchin. There are plenty of Nibiru-believers such as Burak Eldem who propose a 2012 return date and a roughly 3,600-year orbital period. The debate is about Nibiru, not about Sitchin.

Fine; debate and debunk what you will.

If one reads this paper (pdf) one might realize that a wide binary solar companion would not necessarily have been detected by now.

Straw man. If one reads the paper, one discovers that a wide-binary companion which displays two specific consequential properties of interest to those researchers may be in the IRAS database but may not have been recognized as such. That is by no means proof that any wide-binary companion would be undetectable in general, or that a wide-binary companion of the characteristics analyzed by Starfury would escape detection.

OK, if Nibiru has those properties as described by Starfury, I'd agree it should've been detected by now.

[A.DIM]

So we can safely say that Sitchin's figures are bunk. But seeing as he was a/ not an astronomer, and b/ pulled the figures more-or-less out of thin air, that should not really be a surprise.

I must admit I was rather surprised to see that article about the planetary system with jupiter-like bodies in inclined elliptical orbits, announced only a few weeks ago.
Sitchin proposed a similar solar system in '77.

[A.DIM]

Fomalhaut b was discovered by largely the same method as Neptune was discovered in our solar system: by using observable gravitational perturbations in known objects to predict the presence of a nearby planetary mass, then to confirm that prediction visually. That method works fine on a Jupiter-sized planet 25 LYs away, and it works fine on a Neptune-sized planet a few AU away.

Persistent Evidence of a Jovian Mass Solar Companion in the Oort Cloud.

It ought to work exceptionally well on an object now inside our solar system and larger than our largest planet.

Indeed, except only misinformation claims Nibiru is inside our solar system.

Show us the perturbations.

Do cometary wakes and bodies like Sedna or CR105 qualify?

[Swift]

A.DIM,

Please be careful. This thread is to discuss the "conspiracy theory / 2012" version of Nibiru. I do not want to confound that discussion with discussions about other hypothetical Oort Cloud bodies. If you wish to defend the 2012 Nibiru version in this thread, then do so, but you will be held to the appropriate rules. If you want a discussion of other Oort Cloud objects, start a new thread in ATM or Astronomy.

[JayUtah]

...

Nibiru is also said to be inclined to the ecliptic some 30deg.

It is also "said" to exist at all. Give the world something besides vague allusions to other phenomena and loose fits to various minor anomalies, then we'll talk.

Would this materially affect Starfury's model?
I don't know.

If the orbit is highly eccentric then no, it wouldn't really matter. Close to planets means close to planets, whether in or out of their plane.

I'm unconvinced we can say with any certitude what range of orbital eccentricities are possible.

I'm convinced that the discovery you point to is not carte blanche to believe in a rogue body in our solar system. The reason a non-planar system is so momentous a discovery is that it does appear to be comparatively rare and generally unstable. Two planets in a harmonic, semi-stable state is certainly not equivalent to a stable solar companion in a 3,600-year orbit in our solar system.

Fine; debate and debunk what you will.

As we have been.

OK, if Nibiru has those properties as described by Starfury, I'd agree it should've been detected by now.

Agreed. If you argue that Starfury's model is inapplicable, we'll need something more rigorous than "Sitchin says so."

[Hungry4info]

Do you believe Nibiru exists?

No.

Fomalhaut b was discovered by largely the same method as Neptune was discovered in our solar system: by using observable gravitational perturbations in known objects to predict the presence of a nearby planetary mass, then to confirm that prediction visually. That method works fine on a Jupiter-sized planet 25 LYs away, and it works fine on a Neptune-sized planet a few AU away. It ought to work exceptionally well on an object now inside our solar system and larger than our largest planet.

I agree with this, but I was referring to its actual detection, as opposed to its prediction, which you seem to be describing. Furthermore, unless I'm mistaken, Fomalhaubt b could have been anywhere around that Kuiper Belt-like ring. Was it's mean anomaly constrained before the planet was actually detected? (was Neptune's?)

If a hypothetical Nibiru existed, with the extremely eccentric proposed, would we be able to predict its location very effectively? (though I realise that's a moot point, it and/or much of it perturbed much would have been ejected Gyr ago).

[JayUtah]

...

I agree with this, but I was referring to its actual detection, as opposed to its prediction, which you seem to be describing.

Yes, I think we're on slightly different pages.

Most exoplanets are discovered by means of differential magnitude -- the minute changes in a star's brightness over time caused by a transiting planet. If we were to observe Jupiter transit the Sun from far outside the solar system, we'd see the Sun dim ever so slightly as Jupiter passed in front of it and blocked some of the light. Ordinarily the planet would be too dim to be seen as a reflective object through direct observation.

Fomalhaut b is unique in that it can be seen directly as a reflective object.

Furthermore, unless I'm mistaken, Fomalhaubt b could have been anywhere around that Kuiper Belt-like ring. Was it's mean anomaly constrained before the planet was actually detected?

I don't think so because the morphology of the debris disk indicates that there may be other shepherd planets that have not yet been directly observed.

(was Neptune's?)

Yes. That's the brilliance of Neptune's discovery: a differential analysis on where Uranus was seen to be and where it was observed to be pointed to the likely position of Neptune, which was then observed directly after the predictions narrowed the field to search.

If a hypothetical Nibiru existed, with the extremely eccentric proposed, would we be able to predict its location very effectively?

We would predict its orbit and anomaly based on how we observed it to interfere with the orbits of objects we know precisely, such as the other planets in the solar system. Since there is no observable perturbation in the solar system, we can't predict it that way. If it were going to arrive in 2012 and had a 3,600-year period and a 1-3 AU perihelion, we'd be seeing the other planets shift in their orbits, regardless of inclination (so long as the major axis is in the ecliptic). A.DIM patiently reminds us that not all Nibiruphiles accept the 2012 return date, and that's fine; it's out of scope for this particular thread. But if it's meant to arrive in 2012 and has the mass of several Jupiters, we should already be seeing it as a reflective object.