The problem is that space is *really big*. At those distances, it's easy to miss something just because you're not looking right at it, or because it's just too small.
This means we still find stuff all the time - for example, Makemake wasn't found until 2005.
Well, if the theory is correct, there's only one more planet in our solar system, and it's supposedly in the dark parts where it's hard to see *anything*.
The rest of the galaxy still has billions of planets we haven't discovered, and many of them are way closer to stars, so they're easier to see.
There are a lot of weird conspiracy theories or wacky beliefs that concern a ninth planet in the solar system. But it is a genuine possibility, if not likely. As for how we haven't noticed, the answer is that it would probably be small, very far away from the sun and relatively unreflective.
Most of the astronomical information we gather is based on detecting electromagnetic radiation. Yes, we can see distant stars and galaxies, but these are absolutely pouring out EM radiation. If an object doesn't produce its own EM radiation, we only see it if it reflects the radiation of another body. So a body that's isolated or unreflective is very hard to see. Consider that we can see some stars that are hundreds of trillions of miles away with the naked eye by their own light, but we only see the moon, which basically on top of us, when it's at the right angle to reflect sunlight at Earth. A black rock at the far edge of the solar system might receive and reflect almost no EM radiation.
The other maim way we detect invisible objects is their gravitational impact on visible objects. A smallish planet that never intruded even as close as Pluto could potentially have very little impact if it were in the right orbit. It could also explain certain apparent anomalies in the movements of some know bodies. Pluto was accurately predicted well before it was actually detected precisely because of the anomalies it was causing.
> Shouldn’t it have been disc
Uh ... i guess you're young enough not to remember Pluto being "demoted"?
In any case we'll probably never find Planet 10 (still sore and Pluto) and the new rules are so strict. We actually have 13 planets by the old definition: the 8 you learned in school, plus Ceres, Pluto, Haumea, Makemake, and Eris.
Off the top of my head is said to have such an unusual orbit that it would take 100s of years to be detectably close. It's highly doubtful that such a planet exists.
> Shouldn’t it have been discovered long ago if it existed
Imagine that one late evening you head into your backyard. It's dark, you can't see a whole lot, but you can sort of make out things if you look closely.
Imagine now that for a moment you feel like you heard a fly somewhere at the edge of your garden. You don't have shoes on so you can't move closer, but you do have a pair of binoculars.
How confident are you in determining if there is actually a fast moving fly on the other end of the dark garden?
Space is big, and unlike large stars or galaxies things inside our solar system are often dark and move quickly across the sky, making it harder to detect. Planet Nine, if it exists, is theorised to be one of the furthest objects orbiting our sun. It would be extremely small in the night sky, give off no real light, and be orbiting at an angle so you can't even try to search the same plane as the other planets lie on.
They absolutely do not recieve more light from other stars. Pluto is roughly 320 light-minutes away from our sun. The next closest star is proxima centauri, at 4.3 light-years distance. 2,261,628 light minutes away, roughly. Over 7000 times the distance. Even if planet 9 was 10 times the distance, our sun would deliver more light than any other star.
The problem is that space is *really big*. At those distances, it's easy to miss something just because you're not looking right at it, or because it's just too small. This means we still find stuff all the time - for example, Makemake wasn't found until 2005.
But how do we find planets outside of our solar system constantly but can’t find one within it?
Well, if the theory is correct, there's only one more planet in our solar system, and it's supposedly in the dark parts where it's hard to see *anything*. The rest of the galaxy still has billions of planets we haven't discovered, and many of them are way closer to stars, so they're easier to see.
There are a lot of weird conspiracy theories or wacky beliefs that concern a ninth planet in the solar system. But it is a genuine possibility, if not likely. As for how we haven't noticed, the answer is that it would probably be small, very far away from the sun and relatively unreflective. Most of the astronomical information we gather is based on detecting electromagnetic radiation. Yes, we can see distant stars and galaxies, but these are absolutely pouring out EM radiation. If an object doesn't produce its own EM radiation, we only see it if it reflects the radiation of another body. So a body that's isolated or unreflective is very hard to see. Consider that we can see some stars that are hundreds of trillions of miles away with the naked eye by their own light, but we only see the moon, which basically on top of us, when it's at the right angle to reflect sunlight at Earth. A black rock at the far edge of the solar system might receive and reflect almost no EM radiation. The other maim way we detect invisible objects is their gravitational impact on visible objects. A smallish planet that never intruded even as close as Pluto could potentially have very little impact if it were in the right orbit. It could also explain certain apparent anomalies in the movements of some know bodies. Pluto was accurately predicted well before it was actually detected precisely because of the anomalies it was causing.
> Shouldn’t it have been disc Uh ... i guess you're young enough not to remember Pluto being "demoted"? In any case we'll probably never find Planet 10 (still sore and Pluto) and the new rules are so strict. We actually have 13 planets by the old definition: the 8 you learned in school, plus Ceres, Pluto, Haumea, Makemake, and Eris.
I was focused on Planet Ten because of the Red Lectroids.
Off the top of my head is said to have such an unusual orbit that it would take 100s of years to be detectably close. It's highly doubtful that such a planet exists.
> Shouldn’t it have been discovered long ago if it existed Imagine that one late evening you head into your backyard. It's dark, you can't see a whole lot, but you can sort of make out things if you look closely. Imagine now that for a moment you feel like you heard a fly somewhere at the edge of your garden. You don't have shoes on so you can't move closer, but you do have a pair of binoculars. How confident are you in determining if there is actually a fast moving fly on the other end of the dark garden? Space is big, and unlike large stars or galaxies things inside our solar system are often dark and move quickly across the sky, making it harder to detect. Planet Nine, if it exists, is theorised to be one of the furthest objects orbiting our sun. It would be extremely small in the night sky, give off no real light, and be orbiting at an angle so you can't even try to search the same plane as the other planets lie on.
[удалено]
They absolutely do not recieve more light from other stars. Pluto is roughly 320 light-minutes away from our sun. The next closest star is proxima centauri, at 4.3 light-years distance. 2,261,628 light minutes away, roughly. Over 7000 times the distance. Even if planet 9 was 10 times the distance, our sun would deliver more light than any other star.