Sister blog of Physicists of the Caribbean. Shorter, more focused posts specialising in astronomy and data visualisation.

Friday, 8 April 2016

For the record...

I'm just going to go on the record and state that I think planet "9" is a silly thing, and a year or two from now no-one will care about it any more.
at
Labels:

13 comments:

  1. Daniel Taylor8 April 2016 at 17:24

    Except for the Lectroids. Planet 9 has to be there for there to be a planet 10.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Mike Aben8 April 2016 at 17:34

    Oo, time vault this post, though I tend to agree.

    Question: assuming it exists, what is the likelihood that we can directly image this object? Until then, everything else is just inference.

    It's rather like when you hear announcements of potential habitable exoplanets. Hopefully we will soon be measuring the rough chemical composition of the atmospheres of these worlds, but even then we won't be able to drop the "potentially" because there will undoubtably be nonbiological explanations.

    So we'll get this list of worlds that may, or may not, have life, and then what?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Winchell Chung8 April 2016 at 17:43

    Well, if I am reading the articles correctly, the evidence is much the same as for the intra-Mercurial planet Vulcan. Which was based on pre-relativity gravitational calculations.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Robert Minchin8 April 2016 at 17:56

    I met a guy at a AAS meeting a couple of years ago who was still looking for Vulcan...

    ReplyDelete
  5. Mark Ruhland8 April 2016 at 18:59

    Robert Minchin I found Vulcan. It's right over there near Romulus and Remis. Those three do NOT get along.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Ergodic Mage8 April 2016 at 19:11

    I read an internet article that debunking Planet 9 is lead by purple with green polka dot aliens that hide themselves on Earth as astrophysicists.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Dean Calahan8 April 2016 at 19:38

    I've been pretty much dismissing it the whole time I've heard of it. Glad I'm not the only one! Just reading the headlines and blurbs, I could hardly be bothered to even say "blah, blah, blah".

    In other news, an infinite number of straight lines can be drawn through a single point.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Elie Thorne8 April 2016 at 22:52

    Would you care to elaborate why it is to be dismissed? I get that it's far from the first time a "new planet is inferred!" but could you explain what makes this time's arguments flimsy?
    I've heard about the Kuiper orbits all bunched up and a probe trajectory model that the planet would help, but with no idea what they are worth.

    ReplyDelete
  9. David Grigg9 April 2016 at 02:04

    Mike Brown is no fool. I'm betting that it's there, and that we'll spot it within the next 5 years.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Johnathan Chung9 April 2016 at 02:28

    /sub

    (mainly for the answers to Mike's and Elie's questions)

    ReplyDelete
  11. Rhys Taylor9 April 2016 at 08:26

    It just seems to me that they are making incredibly strong claims from extremely flimsy evidence :
    "“It's such a long history of people being basically wrong that standing up and saying we're right this time makes us almost look crazy," Dr Brown said. "Except I'm going to stand up and say we're actually right this time."
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/planet-9-what-we-know-about-this-new-mysterious-dark-world-a6826156.html

    That sort of "we're definitely right" attitude may be fine if you're NGT but it's ridiculous if you're doing actual research. Coupled with Brown's self-labelling as a Pluto killer, the word, "grandstanding" leaps to mind like a kangaroo on a trampoline. The current definition of planet is bloomin' daft anyway. This smacks of glory hunting.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35365323
    http://astrorhysy.blogspot.cz/2015/07/its-planet-deal-with-it.html

    Then there's the evidence itself. Six objects. Six ! From which they infer a clustering probability of 0.007% by chance. Yeah.... really ? Seems to me that that's a crazy-small population of objects to draw any firm conclusions from. There could be any number of as-yet undiscovered objects out there which don't show the same clustering. The idea of a giant planet as the only explanation feels like building a house of cards. 
    http://www.scpr.org/news/2016/01/20/56964/caltech-researchers-answer-skeptics-questions-abou/

    #NotImpressed

    ReplyDelete
  12. Robert Hoyle10 April 2016 at 05:50

    What about using it as a "sling shot" accelerator for a trip to Alpha Centauri with the NASA EM (kinda, maybe, partial) warp drive?

    http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/04/evaluating-nasas-futuristic-em-drive/

    ReplyDelete
  13. house “psstt!!!” doctor23 June 2017 at 05:37

    what if there are already dino living on that planet?

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Giants in the deep

Here's a fun little paper  about hunting the gassiest galaxies in the Universe. I have to admit that FAST is delivering some very impres...

  • Proving a negative is perfectly possible
    Of course you can prove a negative. In one sense this can be the easiest thing in the world : your theory predicts something which doesn...
  • "I'm not a scientist, but..."
    Why Philosophy Matters for Science : A Worked Example "Fox News host Chris Wallace pushed Republican presidential candidate to expand...
  • Death of the Flying Snakes
    In the last batch of simulations, we dropped a long gas stream into the gravitational potential of a cluster to see if it would get torn...