6 ms·
Scientists say they have found evidence of an unknown planet in our solar system
- notresidenter 3y agoHow is this different than when we pretended there was another planet, Vulcan, to reconcile Newtonian physics with the unexplainable phenomenons physicists noticed until others and eventually Einstein came along to prove that the theory was wrong ?
- exe34 3y agoThe difficulty in changing the known laws of physics is that they still have to apply to everything else that has already been observed correctly. So it's probably true that there is another planet out there given these observations, but it's not impossible that the laws of physics themselves need further adjustments.
- Clent 3y agoThe article doesn't even state it this strongly. The claim is that planet 9 is the best explanation. Another explanation offered is that there was a previous planet that affected the existing planet's orbits and it is no longer there. The article also notes that this claim is being made by the same scientist that popularized the idea of a planet 9. There is plenty of room for doubting this specific planet 9 claim without changing any laws of physics.
- exe34 3y ago> There is plenty of room for doubting this specific planet 9 claim without changing any laws of physics. For sure!
- plasticchris 3y agoThis, ether, and dark matter. The equations don’t agree with observations so we invent a thing we have not observed to explain it. I wish it would be explained like this in popular science, went to a planetarium and they presented dark matter as absolute fact.
- dotnet00 3y agoFor the average person, dark matter should be presented as absolute fact. It's the leading explanation that best explains most of the associated phenomenon, and the average person has repeatedly shown themselves to be unable to understand what a scientist means when they call something a theory. Emphasizing that we haven't explicitly discovered what dark matter actually consists of inevitably leads to people who don't understand the evidence dismissing it as "made up" and instead pushing explanations that have a much higher burden of proof (eg modified gravity or modified light speed, which struggle on the point that there are structures which have more or less "extra mass" than usual).
- plasticchris 3y agoIt should be presented as this is what we think, there are some gaps we filled in here, and these gaps are usually where the next big advance comes from. No need to even use the word theory, just explain in simple words and people can get it.
- bryanlarsen 3y agoAnd then we lose those people completely when the "facts" change. Better not to call them facts in the first place.
- jjk166 3y agoThe facts don't change. Apples fell to the ground when we thought newtonian gravity was correct, they still fall to the ground now that general relativity is the accepted explanation. Theories are explanations of factual observations. The observation of the phenomenon we're calling dark matter is as factual as apples falling to the ground. The explanation is subject to change as we learn more, but the facts won't.
- bryanlarsen 3y agodotnet00 said we should call dark matter an "absolute fact".
- perihelions 3y agoTo be fair, this is also more or less how we found Neptune. Boring, simple explanations are often the right ones. Not every horse is secretly a zebra. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_Neptune https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_Neptune - "The planet Neptune was mathematically predicted before it was directly observed. With a prediction by Urbain Le Verrier, telescopic observations confirming the existence of a major planet were made on the night of September 23–24, 1846,[1] at the Berlin Observatory, by astronomer Johann Gottfried Galle (assisted by Heinrich Louis d'Arrest), working from Le Verrier's calculations. It was a sensational moment of 19th-century science, and dramatic confirmation of Newtonian gravitational theory. In François Arago's apt phrase, Le Verrier had discovered a planet "with the point of his pen"."
- notresidenter 3y agoYou're right, but with Neptune, they were able to empirically verify that: oh, there's a planet there. Here's they've made the calculations because those (afaik) fit in the current model and they've concluded: oh, there's (most likely) a planet there. They are only half way there (afaik, but I could have misunderstood their point)
- neverokay 3y agoWe’re pointing the JWT pretty far out, so why wouldn’t we just point a camera at this thing?
- dotnet00 3y agoPoint it where? We don't know exactly where to look, and it might be far out enough to be barely visible. Pointing a telescope at it requires a precise location.
- sliken 3y agoOr it might be literally invisible, a small black hole fits the observations. Also it's predicted that a star comes with 1,500 AU of the sun every billion years or so, a star could have thrown things out of whack and left.
- perihelions 3y agoJWST has a field of view of 2.2 arcminutes. Same as a 0.6 millimeter pinhole at a distance of 1 meter. It's not a telescope for blind surveying where you don't know where to look (as is the case here)—there's much more suited telescopes for that.
- SJC_Hacker 3y ago+1 for calling it JWST to avoid confusion with JSON Web Token (JWT)
- ksherlock 3y agoIf you step in a pile of dog doo, that's evidence there's a dog. Now just point your camera at it...
- neverokay 3y agoHey, no stupid questions right? But if you suspect it’s a planet, you know it’s in orbit around the sun. Feels like something we can track.
- pvaldes 3y agoIn undecided between naming it Krypton, Gallifrey or keep the old tradition of making dirty jokes with planet's names and bet directly for planet Titooine.
- 0xbadc0de5 3y agoDoesn't this topic come up every five years or so? Isn't it always a big nothing-burger? Numbers can be deceiving - and we are great at fooling ourselves. I'll reserve my interest for actual photographic evidence.
- 1970-01-01 3y agoYes. PlanetX has been discovered many times this and last century.
- shzhdbi09gv8ioi 3y agoKonstantin is a terrific speaker, if you haven't watched him before you should give him a few minutes of your time, you won't be disappointed! Here is a previous talk where he goes to great lengths to explain and visualize the Planet 9 hypothesis. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ywrgee0aiFI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ywrgee0aiFI
- 1970-01-01 3y agoHere's an old article that explains everything very well: https://science.nasa.gov/solar-system/planet-x/ https://science.nasa.gov/solar-system/planet-x/
- DamnInteresting 3y agoThey completely botched the spelling of the astronomer's last name, it is Konstantin Batygin, not Konstantin Bogytin.
- Fire-Dragon-DoL 3y agoThe Quantum Moon, obviously
- xtiansimon 3y agoI’ll just put this here… Space is big.