Planet Nine DOES exist: 'Eternally optimistic' astronomers say we WILL find it

The research for discovering Planet Nine is dictated by the available technology...so it's minimal research.

But no matter the scientific research, it is this research that allows mankind to move forward...

 

In what universe?

Pluto was discovered in 1930. The next Kuiper Belt Object wasn't discovered until 1992.

In the year 2032, which is 14 years from now, only one generation will have passed since then.

Pluto is smaller than our own Moon, so it was never a planet.

Pluto was most likely a satellite of Jupiter or Saturn that got knocked out of orbit by an Oort Object, or by a rogue body entering our solar system, either ejected by a collision or pulled out by gravity.

 

I know Wikipedia isn't 100% reliable because anyone can edit it, but this is what it says about the subject . . .

"Planet Nine is a hypothetical planet"

In fact it's a null hypothesis, which means speculative, which in turn means it exists only in the imagination of those who contribute to the theory. Me? I'm more sceptical, and need tangible proof before I believe something. I stopped believing everything I was told without at least a smidgen of evidence when I reached maturity.

 

89

I too am skeptical by nature, this leads me to a need to research and evaluate data in order to accept something as viable possibility or truth. The difference being that I go into this search with a basic understanding and acceptance of natural and scientific realities which allows me to evaluate the data without irrational bias or pre-conceived beliefs. I note you do the opposite and begin with limited understanding and irrational rejection of confirmed information based on what you already believe which automatically limits the ability to learn new concepts and data. This seems to lie at the core of your persona here, hopefully not in the real world.
In the case of planet 9 the anomalies in comet/asteroid orbits in the Kuiper belt do indeed indicate that something of large mass exists beyond it but verification will be difficult at best due to both the albedo of such a body and the extreme distance/vastness of where is might be found. Unless Planet Nine was a very hot object it would be virtually invisible even if we knew exactly where to look so circumstantial evidence is all we can go by at this point in our technology. It is important to understand that a comet/icy world is not some glimmering white snowball but instead something that is often darker than a lump of coal making it extremely hard to observe in visible light. Personally I find it unlikely we will ever see what we seek because of this.

 

How can you 'research and evaluate data' on something which doesn't exist?

 

I cannot other than to confirm it is non-existent. In this case however you have just inadvertently and beautifully provided clear confirmation of my observed commentary on your persona and are simply not bright enough to realize it. You also do not understand just how embarrassed you should be to display this level of ignorance and mental disability in a public setting. You will of course continue to present us with the entertainment and pity magnet we have all come to expect without even knowing it.....please continue.

 

I suspect that you don't believe that; what you resent is that I have forced you to have self-doubt, and therefore are resorting to insult out of discomfiture.

 

Oh brother!

They are NOT mutually exclusive!

For example telescope is one of the TECHNOLOGIES used in COSMOLOGY as are satellites and radar.

 

Alright I'll put it this way to you (which I ought to have done in the first place): I'm not talking about telescopes, I'm talking about the universe?

 

You are of course free to suspect whatever you wish, but as is the usual result you dwell in the errors created by a defunct mind and rather than creating self doubt you solidify my opinion. That you see honest evaluation as insult also lends to the validity of my commentary.

 

Some of what we have learned about the Universe came from using technology like telescopes. WITHOUT that technology we would not have even a fraction of our current level of scientific knowledge of the universe.

 

To be a "Planet" three criteria must be met.

1) A body must be spherical.
2) A body must orbit the Star.
3) A body must clear its orbital path of excess debris.

Pluto meets only two of the three and was thus relegated to dwarf status as it is probably not even the largest of the Kuiper belt objects.

 

Jeez! I've never criticised technology, nor have I said there's no universe. Talk about 'moving the goalposts'.

 

Ironic!

 

Virtually ALL you do here is make fun of and critique science and technology, from solar probes to evolution and NASA you constantly post things you do not understand saying they are B.S. which is criticizing and pretty pathetic. If it were not for the entertainment of court jester performance you would be a sad example of failed human cerebral function.

 

Yes, I'm using BS to expose BS, but I wouldn't expect you to understand that. Get this though - the charlatans at NASA are making a fool of you. I expect they think 'Jesus is there nothing we can say which will make tecoyah stop and start to question what we say - like cerberus does?'

 

If I found data I could not confirm of even better debunk I would not only question but dismiss any data presented and have done so in the past. I simply do not dismiss before research as you do....I in fact question your ability to perform research at all due to the pre-conceived bias that prevents the acceptance of evidence. In essence you must ignore reality because it either upsets your beliefs or confuses you....it is rather sad.

 

Actually, upon reflection I have come to two(2) possible conclusions:

1) You are trolling.
2) You are not very bright.

In the case of #1 you have great skill and perseverance which allows you to keep the attention of many people, if only to enjoy the entertainment provided. If #2 is accurate you have my pity and I will continue attempted education regardless of obvious futility and use the opportunity to continue my own education while being entertained.

 

An the debate is still ongoing.........

 

There is no debate but as is typical some scientists disagree with committee findings. Seldom do we find ANY situation of absolute consensus and that is not only expected but required in scientific pursuit. The definition of a planet has been decided upon and accepted by the vast majority of those in the field but finding a few dissenters is pretty easy If you try.

 

Hmm I will need to check but if my memory is correct the word vast majority seems to be in error with the vote being fairly close on the matter of Pluto.

So far I had fail to find the 2006 vote total so does anyone else have a link to the vote count?

 

Still can not find the vote total from 2006 vote but it seems hardly a vast majority in agreement over the matter.

 

It is important to note that the objections to the new definitions of "planet", even by scientists, were on cultural and historical grounds, not scientific grounds.

 

Pretty sure less than 5% of the astronomy community was even there to vote.

 

Sure, if something is not subject to be disproven, it really isn't science. If it is outside of that realm, it is just fancy thinking, ideas created by the brain, which may or may not be fact.

But how much of what scientists promote is in this group? If science cannot be applied, it seems to lose something. ha ha If it can be applied, then it has credibility, right?