BaalChatzaf Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 As you probably know, Pluto (the celestial body, not Micky Mouse's dog) has been downgraded from planet status. However there are now indirect indications that there is a genuine 9 th planet. It has not been seen, but its existence is inferred from the motions of other celestial bodies. If this planet exists it has about ten times the mass of earth and a rather eccentric orbit. It is suppose to be about 1200 AU out from the sun (AU = earth-sun average distance). Even with our best telescopes it will be hard to see. It is out there in the Kuyper Belt (if it exists) and it is so far out that it would take over 15,000 years to orbit the sun. Telescopic detection will be difficult (do you recall how hard it was to see the former 9 th planet Pluto?). If it is definitely spotted it will take several clear sightings with the bearings to establish the orbit of the planet. Even if the planet is seen by telescope ti will show up only as a small number of pixels on the image devices and details of the planet will be hard to come by. Eventually a probe would have to be sent to get details. But first, let us see the object. Please see http://www.space.com/31671-planet-nine-discovery-explained-infographic.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 I still think of Pluto as the ninth planet. I'd have simply declared anything smaller not to be a planet. But we are ruled by astronomers.--Brantwe all be victims! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KorbenDallas Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 Epistemologically, this is a good example of Aristotelian "possible to be" from De Interpretatione. From Objectivism (of course, largely based off of Aristotelianism), this would be an example of a "probable" when moving along the uncertainty-to-certainty scale.An exciting announcement, historically Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmj Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 It seems certainly scientifically probable, but empirically it's either there or it ain't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted January 21, 2016 Author Share Posted January 21, 2016 It seems certainly scientifically probable, but empirically it's either there or it ain'tThere is enough indicative evidence to justify some effort looking for it with out telescopes. Back in the 30's Tombaugh had less to go on when he looked for Pluto. But he found it.http://www.space.com/19824-clyde-tombaugh.htmlhttp://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/pluto-discovered Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now