"There are now five different lines of observational evidence pointing to the existence of Planet Nine," said Konstantin Batygin, a planetary astrophysicist at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech), who is part of a team on the search for the planet.
"If you were to remove this explanation and imagine Planet Nine does not exist, then you generate more problems than you solve. All of a sudden, you have five different puzzles, and you must come up with five different theories to explain them."
However, Planet Nine isn't the only explanation for the orbital behaviors observed. A recent survey of the outer solar system found over 800 trans-Neptunian objects. A random distribution of this matter could also potentially have the same effect on the tilt on the traits observed in various orbits-but the jury is still out.
There is too many evidence pointing something is causing all these.
I am more interested in just how big it is, and how far it is currently. I know by the mass of 10 times of Earth the radius have to be 2.5 times (unless it is denser than Earth which is unlikely). And talking about distance, it will be huge as shown in this video:
I know the evidence is strong, but NASA has not confirmed it and acknowledges in the article there are viable competing theories. =)
Still very cool, but I like to be cautious when it comes to science writing.
I don't think size matters for the definition of a planet. Our moon is way larger than average for a planet our size. Compare it to other moons. That doesn't make it 'not a moon'.
I don't think size matters for the definition of a planet. Our moon is way larger than average for a planet our size. Compare it to other moons. That doesn't make it 'not a moon'.
It also must be massive enough to be roughly spherical which implies size is a factor (though technically it's mass, but the two are certainly related).
I don't think size matters for the definition of a planet. Our moon is way larger than average for a planet our size. Compare it to other moons. That doesn't make it 'not a moon'.
It also must be massive enough to be roughly spherical which implies size is a factor (though technically it's mass, but the two are certainly related).
Both the clearing of neighborhood and spherical requirements are directly related to mass. Size is arguably indirectly related, but, it is not the root of defining something as a planet or not.
NASA should get together with all the other space agencies in the world and bestow honorary planet status on pluto. Like an honorary doctorate for a famous person. They'e doctor so and so now, but you certainly wouldn't let them do anything with it.
Pluto can be a planet (but not really), and everyone can call it a planet without the endless arguing, and scientists can call it a planet (with an included footnote saying not really) without having to argue with all the people who are offended that someone would take away plutos status like that.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Ask a question
Ask a question
Overclock.net
27.8M posts
541.2K members
Since 2004
A forum community dedicated to overclocking enthusiasts and testing the limits of computing. Come join the discussion about computing, builds, collections, displays, models, styles, scales, specifications, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!