5 ms·

This cannot be evidence of Planet 9 (the Batygin and Brown hypothesis)—it's outright incompatible with it. https://bsky.app/profile/plutokiller.com/post/3lnqm2

This cannot be evidence of Planet 9 (the Batygin and Brown hypothesis)—it's outright incompatible with it. https://bsky.app/profile/plutokiller.com/post/3lnqm2ymbd22r https://bsky.app/profile/plutokiller.com/post/3lnqm2ymbd22r If those two spots are the same object, that object is on a high-inclination orbit; but the pattern the Planet 9 hypothesis explains is only compatible with a low-inclination object.

sph 1y ago
The guy killed Pluto and still he isn't done :( Seriously though, is he one of the people responsible for Pluto's demotion to dwarf planet?
- ufo 1y ago
  His team discovered Eris and many other trans-neptunian objects, which did fuel the discussion behind pluto's demotion: greatly increase the number of planets, or demote pluto? They're also behind the Planet 9 theory that's discussed in the article.
- db48x 1y ago
  Nobody killed Pluto. Back in the early 1800s children used to memorize the names of the 12 planets: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Ceres, Pallas, Juno, Vesta, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. But then in 1845 astronomers discovered Astraea, and now there were 13. In 1847 three more were discovered: Hebe, Iris, and Flora. Then Metis, Hygiea, Parthenope, and Victoria by 1850. The 100th asteroid was discovered in 1868, and the pace only got quicker from there. Somewhere along that line people started using the words “asteroid” and “asteroid belt” and schoolchildren were mercifully spared the pointless task of memorizing hundreds, and later many thousands, of names of asteroids. The same thing happened to Pluto. Just as Ceres was the first discovered asteroid, Pluto was the first discovered TNO. There are now hundreds of named TNO and thousands more that are just numbered. Nobody should force schoolchildren to memorize them all. Just tell them that there are an unknown number of objects in the Kuiper belt and the Oort cloud and they’ll know as much as they need to know. Give them bonus points if they know the names Ceres and Pluto, and more if they know why these two were discovered first of all the objects in their class: they’re the biggest. Otherwise there’s nothing special about them.
  - gonzobonzo 1y ago
    > Nobody should force schoolchildren to memorize them all. Just tell them that there are an unknown number of objects in the Kuiper belt and the Oort cloud and they’ll know as much as they need to know. Or just tell them that there's an unknown number of planets in the solar system, but the big 8 are the only ones they're expected to memorize. That was actually the original plan by the IAU, and how many (I believe most) planetary scientists define planet today. The decision being based mainly on not wanting to add newly discovered planets to the list of planets in the solar system always rubbed me the wrong way. As is the tendency for people to mistakenly believe that this is settled science, when it's actually an unsettled nomenclature debate.
    - science4sail 1y ago
      I thought that there were only four planets? Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune
  - sxcurry 1y ago
    I think he’s referring to Mike Brown’s book “How I Killed Pluto and Why It Had It Coming”. It’s a great read.
    - sph 1y ago
      I didn't know he wrote a book. I was referring to his handle "@plutokiller.com" on Bluesky.
      - db48x 1y ago
        Yea, good book. But he’s wrong. Pluto is still there; nobody has killed it.
raverbashing 1y ago
Nah, if it is big, and at that distance, and follows an elliptical orbit then yes it will be "Planet 9^W 8"
rozab 1y ago
Isn't this exactly how Pluto was discovered? Due to an innacurate estimate of the mass of Neptune (not corrected until Voyager I think), people were hunting for a large planet to explain the discrepancy. After a bunch of searching they happened to find Pluto, but it was not the Planet X they were looking for. The mass estimates for Pluto were gradually downgraded from many Earth masses to 1/500, which is the true reason it was initially classified as a planet.
- Qem 1y ago
  For a time pluto had good estimates for his small size, but poor constraints on his mass beyond this Neptune mass estimate. So I remember reading a short story were they interpreted the possible high density as signs of a stargate.
- philistine 1y ago
  Yeah. If Pluto had been slightly heavier, we’d probably have ended up with a definition of a planet that included its mass instead of clearing its orbit to keep Pluto a planet. But Pluto was cooked when we figured out it’s not really heavier than Ceres.
  - jcranmer 1y ago
    > But Pluto was cooked when we figured out it’s not really heavier than Ceres. You mean Eris? Pluto is ~10 times the mass of Ceres.
    - philistine 1y ago
      Yeah that one!
Qem 1y ago
Perhaps searching for Planet 9 we went straight to Planet 10. There was another one and we happened to find it first. Or also it could be a nomadic planet undergoing a close encounter with the solar system.
interludead 1y ago
It's still super interesting if it is a massive trans-Neptunian object, just maybe not that Planet 9

sph 1y ago

The guy killed Pluto and still he isn't done :( Seriously though, is he one of the people responsible for Pluto's demotion to dwarf planet?

ufo 1y ago
His team discovered Eris and many other trans-neptunian objects, which did fuel the discussion behind pluto's demotion: greatly increase the number of planets, or demote pluto? They're also behind the Planet 9 theory that's discussed in the article.
db48x 1y ago
Nobody killed Pluto. Back in the early 1800s children used to memorize the names of the 12 planets: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Ceres, Pallas, Juno, Vesta, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. But then in 1845 astronomers discovered Astraea, and now there were 13. In 1847 three more were discovered: Hebe, Iris, and Flora. Then Metis, Hygiea, Parthenope, and Victoria by 1850. The 100th asteroid was discovered in 1868, and the pace only got quicker from there. Somewhere along that line people started using the words “asteroid” and “asteroid belt” and schoolchildren were mercifully spared the pointless task of memorizing hundreds, and later many thousands, of names of asteroids. The same thing happened to Pluto. Just as Ceres was the first discovered asteroid, Pluto was the first discovered TNO. There are now hundreds of named TNO and thousands more that are just numbered. Nobody should force schoolchildren to memorize them all. Just tell them that there are an unknown number of objects in the Kuiper belt and the Oort cloud and they’ll know as much as they need to know. Give them bonus points if they know the names Ceres and Pluto, and more if they know why these two were discovered first of all the objects in their class: they’re the biggest. Otherwise there’s nothing special about them.
- gonzobonzo 1y ago
  > Nobody should force schoolchildren to memorize them all. Just tell them that there are an unknown number of objects in the Kuiper belt and the Oort cloud and they’ll know as much as they need to know. Or just tell them that there's an unknown number of planets in the solar system, but the big 8 are the only ones they're expected to memorize. That was actually the original plan by the IAU, and how many (I believe most) planetary scientists define planet today. The decision being based mainly on not wanting to add newly discovered planets to the list of planets in the solar system always rubbed me the wrong way. As is the tendency for people to mistakenly believe that this is settled science, when it's actually an unsettled nomenclature debate.
  - science4sail 1y ago
    I thought that there were only four planets? Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune
- sxcurry 1y ago
  I think he’s referring to Mike Brown’s book “How I Killed Pluto and Why It Had It Coming”. It’s a great read.
  - sph 1y ago
    I didn't know he wrote a book. I was referring to his handle "@plutokiller.com" on Bluesky.
    - db48x 1y ago
      Yea, good book. But he’s wrong. Pluto is still there; nobody has killed it.

raverbashing 1y ago

Nah, if it is big, and at that distance, and follows an elliptical orbit then yes it will be "Planet 9^W 8"

rozab 1y ago

Isn't this exactly how Pluto was discovered? Due to an innacurate estimate of the mass of Neptune (not corrected until Voyager I think), people were hunting for a large planet to explain the discrepancy. After a bunch of searching they happened to find Pluto, but it was not the Planet X they were looking for. The mass estimates for Pluto were gradually downgraded from many Earth masses to 1/500, which is the true reason it was initially classified as a planet.

Qem 1y ago
For a time pluto had good estimates for his small size, but poor constraints on his mass beyond this Neptune mass estimate. So I remember reading a short story were they interpreted the possible high density as signs of a stargate.
philistine 1y ago
Yeah. If Pluto had been slightly heavier, we’d probably have ended up with a definition of a planet that included its mass instead of clearing its orbit to keep Pluto a planet. But Pluto was cooked when we figured out it’s not really heavier than Ceres.
- jcranmer 1y ago
  > But Pluto was cooked when we figured out it’s not really heavier than Ceres. You mean Eris? Pluto is ~10 times the mass of Ceres.
  - philistine 1y ago
    Yeah that one!

Qem 1y ago

Perhaps searching for Planet 9 we went straight to Planet 10. There was another one and we happened to find it first. Or also it could be a nomadic planet undergoing a close encounter with the solar system.

interludead 1y ago

It's still super interesting if it is a massive trans-Neptunian object, just maybe not that Planet 9