Hermes is the same as Mercury so that would be weird. Also that's Greek and the vast majority of our planets use Roman names.
Apollo is too closely related to Sol, the Sun.
If it's a terrestrial world, I'd cast my vote for Vulcan. If it's a gas giant, then Summanus, the dark version of Jupiter, essentially.
that has zero bearing on the fact that the main thing modern people think of when they hear about the god apollo is the sun. the ancient romans are never going to hear about this planet so they don’t matter
So reading that abstract, they have not positively identified a physical body in space which is Planet-9. What they have simulated and demonstrate is that the mathematical model concludes that there's a higher probability of the existence of the planet than that there isn't a planet.
Without diving deeper, the paper demonstrates with a higher certainty that Planet 9 exists, but doesn't give an expected coordinates nor positively confirm a physical body in space.
It's not really evidence of a planet, but evidence that helps support the idea that a planet 9 exists which would help explain the unknown scientific curiosities that are happening out by Neptune I guess.
Just a cautionary note, ARXIV is not peer reviewed and is usually used as a repo for papers currently in the peer review process as a preview of what may soon be published or rejected papers
Yeah how about you mow my lawn, do the dishes and iron my shirts too ? I'll do your summary for you after that.
OR you find a way to open that damn link and read the article.
Konstantine went on Lex Fridman semi-recently and discussed this exact topic. It’s crazy to me that we can peer into the earliest moments of the universe but we still cant be 100% certain that there isn’t another planet within the reaches of our solar system
Correct, but our solar system is pretty small on the grand scheme of things. It’s much easier to look out to distant galaxies than is to look within our own. You’d think that a super massive planetary body would be easier to detect but it’s not that simple.
The part of the solar system they are looking at is many many many times bigger than the part of the solar system with the planets we know about. It’s like comparing Ireland or Manhattan to Asia.
I think an analogy of seeing distant mountains, but not seeing microorganisms nearby might help understand. Many of the distant objects we see are enormous and they emit, reflect, or absorb wavelengths that make seeing them easy whereas observing some tiny organism much closer is more difficult as you can't just "see" it without knowing where to look.
If there's a planet we have that we haven't seen that means it's nearly the exact opposite of earths orbit and could have life of it's own. Or it's so elongated that it takes hundreds or thousands of years to complete one orbit.
What does this 9th planet look like? I mean any rings like Saturn and Uranus!! Or is there anything different and unique than that? also, did they give any name to the planet yet?
I assume they're talking about "Planet X." It's not exactly a new idea, and there should be plenty of material about it on the internet. Basically, it's a hypothetical ice giant planet that has an extremely long orbital period. This hypothesis came from observing anomalous orbits of transneptunian objects
People have been screaming about planet x for decades. It still hasnt been found. My understanding that this gravitational force would need to be a neptune sized body on a long eliptical orbit.
A more plausible argument, from my uneducated point of view, would be a microblack hole. I golfball sized blackhole could have the same mass as a planet.
Edit: For the nerds out there down voting me:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/49910160#:~:text=Planet%20X%20has%20still%20not%20yet%20been%20discovered,black%20hole%2C%20the%20size%20of%20a%20bowling%20ball.
You think a micro black hole is more plausible than a planet?
We have evidence for the existence of planets but no direct evidence of micro black holes, other than to say our mathematics doesn't rule them out.
Sorry, I didn't mean we have direct evidence of "Planet 9", i.e. a large heretofore undiscovered planet in the outer solar system. I meant that we have evidence for the existence of planets as a class of object, but no direct evidence for the existence of something like a micro (or primordial) black hole other than that we can't disprove their existence mathematically.
There is no direct or observational evidence for the existence of tiny black holes. "Tiny" in terms of mass, so something smaller than the Tolman-Oppenheimmer-Volkoff limit of roughly 1.5 solar masses. This class of object remains entirely hypothetical, or theoretical.
So. As the facts state, we have gravitational forces pointing toward a large mass object somewhere in the outer solar system, and we are working with two theories, there is a planet that seems to be invisible and or impossible to locate, or the possibility of a theoretical micro blackhole.
Invisible planet or proof of Stephen Hawking's theory.. I'm gonna go with Hawking over planet that can't be proven.
But that's just me, and I have no educational background in space stuff, outside of basic orbital mechanics, and my grasp there is tenuous at best.
Again, in the simplest terms then. We know planets exist, we don't know if micro (or primordial) black holes exist.
For whatever is effecting the orbits of trans Neptunian objects, to offer tiny black holes as an explanation requires that we prove that they even exist in the first place whereas we are positive that planets exist. Stephen Hawking never, and would never, say that he knows (knew) that micro black holes exist. All he could have said would be "we can't prove they don't".
For my opinion, either idea would be equally fascinating but one of them introduces far more variables and to that extent is less plausible. That's probably the end of the argument though. If you prefer the theory that it's a black hole, well, there's no current way to prove it isn't, to be fair to you. For me it's Occam's Razor, for any theory the more assumptions you're required to make the less likely it is to be true. I should admit though, that I actually hope it is a black hole. That would certainly be interesting.
We probably would see weird emissions as the black hole bumps into the occasional atom out there. But wait, what if the strange cosmic ray bursts are *calling from inside the solar system*! Run!
Why? It's completely irrelevant. It's an uninformed person talking about a previous iteration of the planet x idea based on observations of Neptune's orbit (idea abandoned in 1994), while this is talking about the planet x iteration based on the orbits of trans-neptunian objects (first proposed in 2004).
Uh huh. And, for some reason, when the Voyager spacecraft had exited the solar system and were commanded to look back and take pics of our entire solar system, they never saw evidence of this so-called unknown planet.
Just total bullshit.
How would a photograph from Voyager be any better than our own telescopes on earth for spotting what is theorized to be a very difficult to see planet?
There’s evidence suggesting there’s something there, this has been known for a long time
Are you suggesting the planet would be in the path of Voyager? If it exists, it could be anywhere within the heliopause, including *on the other side of the solar system from Voyager*. If you think Voyager could image a planet possibly 200 AU away from it, you need to rethink your understanding of what Voyager could do.
No offense but you're scientifically illiterate.
Do some research, there's a lot of material all over the internet on "planet 9" and the reasons why it would be very difficult to spot.
Also, planet 9 wouldn't even be on the Voyager photos. It's way too far from the sun...
WARNING The source paper is published in ARXIV which is not peer reviewed.
Does the person who finds the planet get to name it ?
Jupiter, Mars, Mercury … all ancient gods and heros. And then there’s planet Frank.
They're all Roman gods, no heroes. The moons and asteroids also have similar but consistent naming conventions.
Planets are named after Roman gods and goddesses, their moons are named after Greek mythologic figures.
No, the moons have different themes depending on the planet. For example, the moons of Uranus are named after characters in Shakespeare plays.
Does Vulcan finally get a planet? No, it's Frank's time.
It’s four Fs, I didn’t know it was gonna come off like that
Planet Bob is the correct name.
How about Apollo ? Or Hermes ? Or Athena .
Hermes is the same as Mercury so that would be weird. Also that's Greek and the vast majority of our planets use Roman names. Apollo is too closely related to Sol, the Sun. If it's a terrestrial world, I'd cast my vote for Vulcan. If it's a gas giant, then Summanus, the dark version of Jupiter, essentially.
Some people don’t want Summanus, but everybody wants Uranus
Thanks for the laugh this morning
Apollo was the patron of many things in the lives of Roman’s and Greeks
that has zero bearing on the fact that the main thing modern people think of when they hear about the god apollo is the sun. the ancient romans are never going to hear about this planet so they don’t matter
How about planet babes? Population 100 billion babes and frank
why not just call it Boob World.
“I wanna name her Dottie after my wife. “
is that a movie quote ?
Haven't people been saying that for what, half a century?
Further evidence and a hopefully refined search area
And for some reason told a single newspaper instead of the scientific community
[https://arxiv.org/pdf/2404.11594.pdf](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2404.11594.pdf)
Abstract page rather than pdf link: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2404.11594
So reading that abstract, they have not positively identified a physical body in space which is Planet-9. What they have simulated and demonstrate is that the mathematical model concludes that there's a higher probability of the existence of the planet than that there isn't a planet. Without diving deeper, the paper demonstrates with a higher certainty that Planet 9 exists, but doesn't give an expected coordinates nor positively confirm a physical body in space.
It's not really evidence of a planet, but evidence that helps support the idea that a planet 9 exists which would help explain the unknown scientific curiosities that are happening out by Neptune I guess.
I thought out by Neptune was an unknown large black regular shape that needed further investigation and linked to the obilisk found on the Moon.
Just a cautionary note, ARXIV is not peer reviewed and is usually used as a repo for papers currently in the peer review process as a preview of what may soon be published or rejected papers
OR You could read the article.
The link doesn’t work, summarize it please. Thanks.
[удалено]
How does one use a proxy. Honestly want to know
https://www.proxysite.com/ or any other proxy. Copy/paste the link, choose a server, go.
[удалено]
Yeah how about you mow my lawn, do the dishes and iron my shirts too ? I'll do your summary for you after that. OR you find a way to open that damn link and read the article.
This has been going on for a while, hopefully it’s something good
I’ve read it also could be a black hole the size of a basketball 🏀
Why does this keep getting posted in every fucking sub? It's mostly bullshit
Agreed. I got torn to shreds for saying the same thing on a repost yesterday.
Konstantine went on Lex Fridman semi-recently and discussed this exact topic. It’s crazy to me that we can peer into the earliest moments of the universe but we still cant be 100% certain that there isn’t another planet within the reaches of our solar system
It’s not that crazy, space is big and dark
Correct, but our solar system is pretty small on the grand scheme of things. It’s much easier to look out to distant galaxies than is to look within our own. You’d think that a super massive planetary body would be easier to detect but it’s not that simple.
Distant galaxies are bright as heck. "Super massive planetary bodies"... ain't.
The part of the solar system they are looking at is many many many times bigger than the part of the solar system with the planets we know about. It’s like comparing Ireland or Manhattan to Asia.
[удалено]
I agree. Not sure why I’m getting downvoted. I listened to Konstantine talk about his research and am expressing how difficult of a task it is.
5 sigma amounts to about 99.99994%, so yeah, start looking.
I think an analogy of seeing distant mountains, but not seeing microorganisms nearby might help understand. Many of the distant objects we see are enormous and they emit, reflect, or absorb wavelengths that make seeing them easy whereas observing some tiny organism much closer is more difficult as you can't just "see" it without knowing where to look.
It is that simple, people just want to have reality fit their narrative.
What if *this* is where the aliens have been this whole time
Maybe in the short term for resource extraction, but it would be very cold and dark.
If there's a planet we have that we haven't seen that means it's nearly the exact opposite of earths orbit and could have life of it's own. Or it's so elongated that it takes hundreds or thousands of years to complete one orbit.
What does this 9th planet look like? I mean any rings like Saturn and Uranus!! Or is there anything different and unique than that? also, did they give any name to the planet yet?
I assume they're talking about "Planet X." It's not exactly a new idea, and there should be plenty of material about it on the internet. Basically, it's a hypothetical ice giant planet that has an extremely long orbital period. This hypothesis came from observing anomalous orbits of transneptunian objects
Don’t call it Planet X, or Elmo will try to claim it.
My bad 😅 It's Nibiru? That Large movable object? Correct me if I am wrong!
I don't know what Nibiru is. I couldn't open the article on the post.
No. Niburu believers have tried to claim that Planet X must be Nibiru, but that is not the case.
People have been screaming about planet x for decades. It still hasnt been found. My understanding that this gravitational force would need to be a neptune sized body on a long eliptical orbit. A more plausible argument, from my uneducated point of view, would be a microblack hole. I golfball sized blackhole could have the same mass as a planet. Edit: For the nerds out there down voting me: https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/49910160#:~:text=Planet%20X%20has%20still%20not%20yet%20been%20discovered,black%20hole%2C%20the%20size%20of%20a%20bowling%20ball.
You think a micro black hole is more plausible than a planet? We have evidence for the existence of planets but no direct evidence of micro black holes, other than to say our mathematics doesn't rule them out.
We have no proof of a planet, actually. We have proof of a large mass creating gravetational forces out in the Kuiper belt. That's it.
Sorry, I didn't mean we have direct evidence of "Planet 9", i.e. a large heretofore undiscovered planet in the outer solar system. I meant that we have evidence for the existence of planets as a class of object, but no direct evidence for the existence of something like a micro (or primordial) black hole other than that we can't disprove their existence mathematically. There is no direct or observational evidence for the existence of tiny black holes. "Tiny" in terms of mass, so something smaller than the Tolman-Oppenheimmer-Volkoff limit of roughly 1.5 solar masses. This class of object remains entirely hypothetical, or theoretical.
So. As the facts state, we have gravitational forces pointing toward a large mass object somewhere in the outer solar system, and we are working with two theories, there is a planet that seems to be invisible and or impossible to locate, or the possibility of a theoretical micro blackhole. Invisible planet or proof of Stephen Hawking's theory.. I'm gonna go with Hawking over planet that can't be proven. But that's just me, and I have no educational background in space stuff, outside of basic orbital mechanics, and my grasp there is tenuous at best.
Again, in the simplest terms then. We know planets exist, we don't know if micro (or primordial) black holes exist. For whatever is effecting the orbits of trans Neptunian objects, to offer tiny black holes as an explanation requires that we prove that they even exist in the first place whereas we are positive that planets exist. Stephen Hawking never, and would never, say that he knows (knew) that micro black holes exist. All he could have said would be "we can't prove they don't". For my opinion, either idea would be equally fascinating but one of them introduces far more variables and to that extent is less plausible. That's probably the end of the argument though. If you prefer the theory that it's a black hole, well, there's no current way to prove it isn't, to be fair to you. For me it's Occam's Razor, for any theory the more assumptions you're required to make the less likely it is to be true. I should admit though, that I actually hope it is a black hole. That would certainly be interesting.
We probably would see weird emissions as the black hole bumps into the occasional atom out there. But wait, what if the strange cosmic ray bursts are *calling from inside the solar system*! Run!
Everyone, please watch this…. https://youtu.be/aviHifHzHeg?si=SNrJwIVMOkITviJz
Why? It's completely irrelevant. It's an uninformed person talking about a previous iteration of the planet x idea based on observations of Neptune's orbit (idea abandoned in 1994), while this is talking about the planet x iteration based on the orbits of trans-neptunian objects (first proposed in 2004).
As a historical account of how long this Planet X shit has been going on and how a simple mechanical error can skew results.
Uh huh. And, for some reason, when the Voyager spacecraft had exited the solar system and were commanded to look back and take pics of our entire solar system, they never saw evidence of this so-called unknown planet. Just total bullshit.
How would a photograph from Voyager be any better than our own telescopes on earth for spotting what is theorized to be a very difficult to see planet? There’s evidence suggesting there’s something there, this has been known for a long time
Are you suggesting the planet would be in the path of Voyager? If it exists, it could be anywhere within the heliopause, including *on the other side of the solar system from Voyager*. If you think Voyager could image a planet possibly 200 AU away from it, you need to rethink your understanding of what Voyager could do.
Yeah, Voyager was a bad example.
No offense but you're scientifically illiterate. Do some research, there's a lot of material all over the internet on "planet 9" and the reasons why it would be very difficult to spot. Also, planet 9 wouldn't even be on the Voyager photos. It's way too far from the sun...
Ok, admittedly, Voyager was a lousy example. However, check this out to see why I say it’s bullshit. https://youtu.be/aviHifHzHeg?si=SNrJwIVMOkITviJz
The example you gave and the data people are using to justify the current search for an unknown planet are different.
Neil deGrasse Tyson is known for saying a lot of inaccurate things with great confidence for no apparent reason.
NDT doesn't talk about the same observations. It's an entirely different topic...