14 ms·

This article doesn't give either the for or the against, as we currently stand. I'm not really sure how it's debatable, either their evidence was correct or no

This article doesn't give either the for or the against, as we currently stand. I'm not really sure how it's debatable, either their evidence was correct or not. Surely a respectable third person can look and tell us? The mathematics has been out for 6 weeks. > “It is important to note that our work does not explicitly rule out Planet X/Planet 9" I find this annoying. If it disproves their evidence, which I assume was the only known evidence for a 9th planet, then it does. Add to this "Planet X" is tied to the original article, so if this kills all their evidence they also lose naming rights.

mjw1007 6y ago
The linked blog post at http://findplanetnine.blogspot.com/2021/02/is-planet-nine-finally-dead.html http://findplanetnine.blogspot.com/2021/02/is-planet-nine-fi... has some more detail, though it's from the proponents of the theory rather than someone trying to be neutral. It looks like there are two things going on: - With the current set of observations, the evidence for clustering is fairly strong, but well short of strong enough that it can't just be chance. - The new survey was including one data point (which doesn't fit in the 'cluster') that Mike Brown doesn't think counts [1]. With the numbers involved, it seems to me that one additional data point is likely to be making a big difference. [1] « there is one additional object that Napier et al. include that was never reported to the Minor Planet Center; we restrict our analysis to objects whose detection history we can track; that one unreported object is down in the lower left of the lefthand plot »
- aaron695 6y ago
  Kevin Napier (First of the 50 authors on the against paper) talks here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-6OrCJ9ZEU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-6OrCJ9ZEU (32 mins) It addresses the above a bit and its interesting in its own right talking about Kuiper belt stuff.

mjw1007 6y ago

The linked blog post at http://findplanetnine.blogspot.com/2021/02/is-planet-nine-finally-dead.html http://findplanetnine.blogspot.com/2021/02/is-planet-nine-fi... has some more detail, though it's from the proponents of the theory rather than someone trying to be neutral. It looks like there are two things going on: - With the current set of observations, the evidence for clustering is fairly strong, but well short of strong enough that it can't just be chance. - The new survey was including one data point (which doesn't fit in the 'cluster') that Mike Brown doesn't think counts [1]. With the numbers involved, it seems to me that one additional data point is likely to be making a big difference. [1] « there is one additional object that Napier et al. include that was never reported to the Minor Planet Center; we restrict our analysis to objects whose detection history we can track; that one unreported object is down in the lower left of the lefthand plot »

aaron695 6y ago
Kevin Napier (First of the 50 authors on the against paper) talks here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-6OrCJ9ZEU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-6OrCJ9ZEU (32 mins) It addresses the above a bit and its interesting in its own right talking about Kuiper belt stuff.