Re: 10th Planet / Pioneer Probes / Dead Star Enyclopedia Diagram

A couple of clarifications only, if you please, those of you
on SAA that can interpret the below astronomical report
better than I.  Much obliged.

JJ 

In the 1988 issue of The Astronomical Journal, Volume 96,
Number 4, R. S. Harrington of the US Naval Observatory wrote
a report that was published in October, 1988 by the American
Astronomical Society.  The title of this report was: 

             'The Location Of Planet X'

Follow the below URL to all 3 pages of this report.  The URL
is long and may wrap, therefore the tail end may have to be
pasted to the front end to make a complete URL.

http://adsbit.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1988AJ.....96.1476H


Summarizing briefly, Mr Harrington used compilations of
VISUAL and PHOTOGRAPHIC data of the orbits of Uranus and
Neptune to try to discover what was causing these orbits to
not behave according to their calculated paths based on the
then current gravitational model of the solar system.
Uranus observational data went as far back as 1833. Neptune
observational data went as far back as 1846.  The eventual,
and possibly, accidental, discovery of the planet Pluto and
its moon Charon, and their insignificant combined masses,
did little to change the reason for the perturbations of
Uranus and Neptune as was being observed.  

Yes, I KNOW that it has been claimed by several prominent
SAA posters that more accurate data from the Voyager probes
of the outer planet masses has, as quoted below from Paul
Schlyter's site: 

> when these updated masses were inserted in the numerical integrations of the
> solar system, the residuals in the positions of the outer planets finally
> disappeared. It seems like the search for "Planet X" finally has come to an
> end.

What I don't understand and hope someone can clarify, and
it's possibly due to specific astronomical terminology of
'perturbations' and 'residuals', is:

1) HOW can more accurate masses of outer planets 'explain
   away' a century of observational data by many prior and
   well established astronomers?
 
                        OR

2) Do the now more accurate masses of the outer planets due 
   to Voyager flybys explain WHY the orbits of Uranus and   
   Neptune STILL perturb?

3) And if 2) is correct, why is it said that the 'residual'
   positions or the 'residuals' disappeared? 

As I said, only a couple of clarifications!  Point me in a
direction or to a location if possible and I'll happily,
within my abilities, do the digging to try to understand
this conundrum.

Thank you,

JJ

*********************************************************

On Tue, 22 May 2001 23:38:27 -0700, "Steve Havas"
<shavas7@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Just came across this courtesy of Paul Schlyter:
> 
> http://www.ex.ac.uk/Mirrors/nineplanets/hypo.html
> "In 1987, John Anderson at JPL examined the motions of the spacecraft
> Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11, to see if any deflection due to unknown gravity
> forces could be found. None was found -- from this Anderson concluded that a
> tenth planet most likely exists! JPL had excluded observations of Uranus
> prior to 1910 in their ephemerides, while Anderson had confidence in the
> earlier observations as well. Anderson concluded that the tenth planet must
> have a highly elliptical orbit, carrying it far away to be undetectable now
> but periodically bringing it close enough to leave its disturbing signature
> on the paths of the outer planets. He suggests a mass of five Earth masses,
> an orbital period of about 700-1000 years, and a highly inclined orbit. Its
> perturbations on the outer planets won't be detected again until 2600.
> Anderson hoped that the two Voyagers would help to pin down the location of
> this planet. "
> 
> but then...
> 
> "The Voyagers also yielded more accurate masses for the outer planets --
> when these updated masses were inserted in the numerical integrations of the
> solar system, the residuals in the positions of the outer planets finally
> disappeared. It seems like the search for "Planet X" finally has come to an
> end. There was no "Planet X" (Pluto doesn't really count), but instead an
> asteroid belt outside Neptune/Pluto was found!"
> 
> ...and so it seems a century or so of mystery and carefull observation is
> put to rest... (whew!)
> 
> Question: Theoretically, how might an earth size object directly on the
> other side of the sun and in the same orbit of earth affect such probes?
> Some wild rumour I heard.... something announced by The Voice of Russia in
> 95?
>