4 ms·

I think the content of the NASA press release that this article is based on is: - that planet nine theory still seems to be holding up; - Batygin and Brown ha

I think the content of the NASA press release that this article is based on is: - that planet nine theory still seems to be holding up; - Batygin and Brown have just spent a week at Mauna Kea looking for it.

stephengillie 9y ago
In 12 years, this appears to have regressed from actually seeing the planet, to just a vague theory of its existence. What's going on here? Article from 07/2005[0] where Brown, Trujillo, and Rabinowitz discovered the 10th planet "using the Samuel Oschin Telescope at Palomar Observatory near San Diego. It is currently about 97 times farther from the sun than Earth, or 97 Astronomical Units (AU). For comparison, Pluto is 40 AU from the sun." Article from 01/2015[1] where Brown (and Batygin?) proposed 2 planets might be beyond Pluto's orbit, and cite star HL Tauri, which has a planet forming disk more than 100 AU from the star - supporting the idea of "distant planet formation". Article from 09/2015[2] where Sheppard and Trujillo publish a paper in Nature in 2014. They call it "Planet X". Article from 01/2016[3] where Brown and Batygin proposed the planet in The Astronomical Journal. [0] https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2005/29jul_planetx/ https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2005/2... [1] https://www.universetoday.com/118252/astronomers-are-predicting-at-least-two-more-large-planets-in-the-solar-system/ https://www.universetoday.com/118252/astronomers-are-predict... [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2015/09/03/is-there-a-planet-x-a-massive-perturber-hidden-beyond-pluto/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2... [3] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/science/space/ninth-planet-solar-system-beyond-pluto.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/science/space/ninth-plane...
- mjw1007 9y ago
  They decided not to classify the 2005 "10th planet" as a planet (and to stop classifying Pluto as one). This new one, if it's there, will be much bigger.
  - simcop2387 9y ago
    Along with that, the last estimate of it's orbit put it at something like 100-500AU away, which is what it's been so hard to find.
- vladus2000 9y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eris_(dwarf_planet) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eris_(dwarf_planet) is likely what the 2005 article is about.
perseusprime11 9y ago
If Planet 9 theory holds up, then why not Planet 10 and 11 and so forth?
- TomK32 9y ago
  As with any system with an unknown, the unknown factor might actually be more than just one factor. Wether Planet 10 is a factor can only be determined once planet 9 is observed proper (so far we only know it has be to "there" but haven't seen it) and measured sufficiently enough to be added to the models of solar system.
- mabbo 9y ago
  There's a list of 'weird' things that need to be explained. A big 9th planet orbiting within a fairly tight range of parameters would explain many things on that list. A 10th or 11th planet might also explain it, but not as well, and it's a more complicated answer to have 2 or 3 new planets instead of one. Occam's razor: the simplest explanation is the most likely.

stephengillie 9y ago

In 12 years, this appears to have regressed from actually seeing the planet, to just a vague theory of its existence. What's going on here? Article from 07/2005[0] where Brown, Trujillo, and Rabinowitz discovered the 10th planet "using the Samuel Oschin Telescope at Palomar Observatory near San Diego. It is currently about 97 times farther from the sun than Earth, or 97 Astronomical Units (AU). For comparison, Pluto is 40 AU from the sun." Article from 01/2015[1] where Brown (and Batygin?) proposed 2 planets might be beyond Pluto's orbit, and cite star HL Tauri, which has a planet forming disk more than 100 AU from the star - supporting the idea of "distant planet formation". Article from 09/2015[2] where Sheppard and Trujillo publish a paper in Nature in 2014. They call it "Planet X". Article from 01/2016[3] where Brown and Batygin proposed the planet in The Astronomical Journal. [0] https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2005/29jul_planetx/ https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2005/2... [1] https://www.universetoday.com/118252/astronomers-are-predicting-at-least-two-more-large-planets-in-the-solar-system/ https://www.universetoday.com/118252/astronomers-are-predict... [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2015/09/03/is-there-a-planet-x-a-massive-perturber-hidden-beyond-pluto/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2... [3] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/science/space/ninth-planet-solar-system-beyond-pluto.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/science/space/ninth-plane...

mjw1007 9y ago
They decided not to classify the 2005 "10th planet" as a planet (and to stop classifying Pluto as one). This new one, if it's there, will be much bigger.
- simcop2387 9y ago
  Along with that, the last estimate of it's orbit put it at something like 100-500AU away, which is what it's been so hard to find.
vladus2000 9y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eris_(dwarf_planet) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eris_(dwarf_planet) is likely what the 2005 article is about.

perseusprime11 9y ago

If Planet 9 theory holds up, then why not Planet 10 and 11 and so forth?

TomK32 9y ago
As with any system with an unknown, the unknown factor might actually be more than just one factor. Wether Planet 10 is a factor can only be determined once planet 9 is observed proper (so far we only know it has be to "there" but haven't seen it) and measured sufficiently enough to be added to the models of solar system.
mabbo 9y ago
There's a list of 'weird' things that need to be explained. A big 9th planet orbiting within a fairly tight range of parameters would explain many things on that list. A 10th or 11th planet might also explain it, but not as well, and it's a more complicated answer to have 2 or 3 new planets instead of one. Occam's razor: the simplest explanation is the most likely.