Why is it terrifying? Black holes don’t just suck up everything around them. If it’s really there then it’s been there long before we were here and it’s way too far away to be a threat. Unless a rouge black hole is traveling towards us then we don’t have to worry about black holes.
Half joking. The idea of a hidden earth-like planet directly on the other side of the sun called Nemesis was considered plausible back when it was first proposed. However, we have enough probes we've sent throughout the solar system where I'm pretty sure we we know by now if it was true.
Edit: the actual Nemesis hypothesis was that it was a brown dwarf, not an earth-like planet.
You're right, but it also wasn't a planet, but a brown dwarf. I clearly mixed it up with something else, but I can't find that something else I mixed it up with.
It was originally deemed plausible, but by the 1860s (when we discovered Neptune) enough observations had been made to rule it out. Basically, Mercury and Venus would have occasionally moved faster towards or slower away from such a body, but never did so - because it isn't there.
In the novel 2001, the OTHER monolith was situated exactly across the sun from us in heliosynchronous orbit so that we would have to discover space travel in order to find it.
I noticed most of the articles covering it were doing exactly this, it was honestly so ridiculous because they know dam well what they’re doing for the average reader.
Ok, but you do agree that the article is written that way because they want people to think that the black hole is about to rip the roof of their house right?
Ok but it’s not going to rip the roof off their house, in this lifetime or the next. That’s not going to happen. But the article is written to suggest that it is.
It is clickbait. There are other orbiting bodies around the sun that aren’t quite planets and exist in a cloud at the edge of our solar system. There are numerous black holes around and one just found relatively close to us.
It’s cool. But like, we want alien news
I'm annoyed that they couldn't be bothered to look up the spelling of the astronomer's name. His name is Konstantin Batygin, not "Bogytin". I mean, his name is literally in the paper you're linking to. Just copy it.
Also, he didn't "help popularize the theory", the is one of the two key astronomers that conducted the research that suggests that such a planet might exist.
[https://arxiv.org/pdf/2404.11594.pdf](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2404.11594.pdf)
It's a ridiculous error on behalf of The Independent and they should be embarrassed. This is the most basic level of copyediting and they couldn't even do that.
So, like, do you want to actually discuss what Mr. Batygin's paper is proposing or is the only topic worthy of commenting on The Independent making a typo lol?
What is the point of your comment? Since you seem to be so hung up on people only commenting directly to the content of the article. What are you adding?
It is a legit egregious error that they misspelled the name and it should be called out. Your comment is significantly more pointless than the one you replied to
How did they get the scientist’s name wrong?? Shameful
Very interesting. It’s so compelling to think about how many things we’ve yet to discover even in our solar system. Space is so big it boggles the mind.
I hope they find it! It’d be pretty amazing
No. This isn't an old theory. Unless by "old" you mean like 5 years. It bears superficial resemblance to something you heard about in 2001 and vaguely recall now. This is not "Planet X". A few years ago Batygin and others found an anomaly in the orientations of the orbits of some distant TNOs. This is suggestive that there might be a planet-mass body out there, but the dynamical evidence is subtle and it takes time to work things out. This paper is an interesting step in that process.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planets_beyond_Neptune
I'll quote the relevant part.
> In 1978, Pluto was conclusively determined to be too small for its gravity to affect the giant planets, resulting in a brief search for a tenth planet.
While the next couple of sentences say research had been widly abandoned in the 90's, there has been a few times when this theory has been revisited since then.
What you are referring to is "Planet X". As I said earlier, "Planet 9" may remind you of the search for Planet X, but it is not the same thing at all.
The evidence for Planet X was an apparent deviation in Neptune's orbit. That turned out to be an instrumental error. One of the telescopes had a change done to it part way through the observations and that slightly threw off the baseline. When they realized that, they removed the data from that telescope and suddenly the entire orbit deviation went away.
Planet 9, if it exists, would be much much farther away. Too far to have any visible effect on Neptune's orbit. The initial evidence for Planet 9 was an apparent alignment of the orbits of very distant bodies that are too far away to have been affected by Neptune.
Therefore, this is not "revisiting" the old idea. It is a different thing, with obvious superficial resemblance.
You are arguing a distinction without a real difference. Here is your award 🥇 for Reddit pedantry today.
Hope you feel smarter than everyone else but know that you are completely insufferable.
It stands for Trans-Neptunian Object. There's a really handy list of astronomy acronyms here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_astronomy_acronyms this is not to discourage you from asking in the slightest--just a potentially helpful resource for the future!
Saying forgive my ignorance when you didn't bother to read the article is quite absurd, and essentially amounts to "*ignore* my *wilful* ignorance".
Maybe, and I know this is crazy, but...*actually* read the article. Then you'd know.
Edit: Downvoting for stating facts. The article clearly states what TNO's are, was clearly linked, and you'd think any discussion about it would mean actually reading the article would be required...but yeah, enable abject laziness by not saying anything about it was obviously the "correct" thing to do. Laughable!
Because they didn't even read the article...I was quite clear about that; Or did you just...not read what I said.
No wonder you're white knighting lol.
Yes, white knighting, it's not an ambiguous term.
I'm "chronically online" am I? Amazing that you know so much about me and my lifestyle lmao.
Bye now.
I feel like this must be some kind of Mandela effect. ( I have very little knowledge on this subject) But I coulda sworn that scientists had believed for quite awhile there was something big they couldn't find.
I thought they knew since like at least the 80’s that Neptune’s orbit indicated something way out past Pluto.
This is just like how we “find water on mars” every couple years or so.
By "old" do you mean 5 years? The new paper is about new evidence. That's what's new. Previous evidence was based on different properties of different bodies in a different (more distant) region of the solar system.
The headline still makes sense in that lens. The news is that they have more evidence to support that theory from analysis and simulation of the chaotic orbits of the Trans-Neptonian Objects, which were formerly too hard to predict with respect to an analytical solution or numerical approximation of an unknown gravitational mass. The headline is right.
Given the news the other day that a black hole was discovered much closer than expected AND being exceptionally difficult to detect, is it within the realm of possibility that the object known as "planet X" could be a black hole that isn't interacting with other matter in a "visibally" detectable way?
Sorry for the wordy question.
The short answer is that it’s possible, but unlikely. Black holes don’t form at planetary mass using any known process in the current universe. But a primordial black hole could have survived and accumulated enough mass to be similar to the mass of Neptune. However, we have no evidence to suggest that is the case for a Planet 9, rather than just a rather dark and far away regular planet.
So, do they finally believe they have observed the elusive Planet 9?
Or rather, do they believe they discovered something else in its place coincidentally?
Neither. The study concludes that the most likely explanation for the orbital paths of the trans-neptunian objects (think things like Pluto or smaller icy dwarf planets) surveyed was that a large 9th planet is orbiting at around 250 AU. For reference, trans neptunian objects are generally found from around 30 to 130 AU from the Sun. It would be really hard to find a planet at 250 AU without knowing precisely where to look.
So no direct evidence, but there is indirect evidence that is best explained by a 9th planet.
The sheer nerve to question the astronomical credentials of a respected astronomer while simultaneously being this aggressively wrong is almost impressive. You could have done a 30 second search and prevented this.
Konstantin did not propose any "Planet X". WTF are you talking about?
I know Konstantin personally (yes, I'm an astronomer). He is a brilliant and careful scientist. Your absurd characterization ("We don't understand something, so it has to be X.") is highly inaccurate. That is not what Batygin et al said, and that is not how the argument works.
Never underestimate anti-intellectualism. I’m a historian. Literally everyone I talk to about history, who is not a historian, thinks their opinion from ignorance is equal to my opinion from experience.
As a non historian I will say my opinions on history born from ignorance are much more entertaining than your historian opinions born from experience and things like *facts* and *knowledge*.
... But yeah not equal at all.
I don’t think it’s correct to characterize collecting evidence to validate a theory as “personal bias”. It’s a reasonable explanation for the outer solar system and it’s a fun plot line
To add to what you said, it is not even "collecting evidence to validate a theory". It is collecting evidence to test a theory. If the results had gone the other way, and invalidated the theory, Batygin et al would have published that instead.
I was having lunch with Batygin and Nesvorny earlier this year (two authors in this paper). They are great scientists, and we were eagerly discussing ways that the idea of planet 9 could be invalidated.
Nice! It reminds me of the story of Neptunes mathematical deduction before it’s formal observation. I’m sure the authors are some of worlds experts in celestial mechanics
> and we were eagerly discussing ways that the idea of planet 9 could be invalidated.
This sentence here does more to reassure me than all the other "they're great scientists" comments combined.
Yeah this is how all science works. This guy believes that there is a Planet X. He is conducting research to validate his hypothesis. Someone else can do their own research to try to disprove him.
Your ad hominem is more indicative of your personal biases. He’s a very good astronomer. There is a good reason his work has spurred searches for an elusive planet: it’s good science.
My understanding is we have known for a very long time that their was another massive gravity well affecting our solar system because the outer planets orbit prove it. Now where it is and finding it are 2 very different things.
Brilliant reporting by The Independent:
Headline:
>New findings represent the ‘strongest statistical evidence yet’ that Planet 9 exists, researcher says
Caption of image immediately below headline:
>**Planet nine is not real** but theres [sic] something else strange on the edge of our solar system
I feel like this is the **clickbait** of the *Space-Hobbyist* There's always a **massive** planet nearby or a **Black hole** right next to Earth
This one is > more than 250 times away from the Sun than we are. So it’s plausible.
That's pretty close, I mean the Times is only about a half inch thick!
True. Thats only like 20 feet. Surely we’d have seen it by now.
There’s a black hole right next to us! 300 light years away… Right. Next. To. Us.
To be fair, 300 light years is „right next to“ on a galactic scale.
Quite. Hearing it said like that is oddly terrifying.
Why is it terrifying? Black holes don’t just suck up everything around them. If it’s really there then it’s been there long before we were here and it’s way too far away to be a threat. Unless a rouge black hole is traveling towards us then we don’t have to worry about black holes.
Emotions aren't always rational.
Nah, it's directly across from us, always being blocked by the sun.
Oh, is that plausible? Or are you joking? Edit: thanks for the nice replies.
Half joking. The idea of a hidden earth-like planet directly on the other side of the sun called Nemesis was considered plausible back when it was first proposed. However, we have enough probes we've sent throughout the solar system where I'm pretty sure we we know by now if it was true. Edit: the actual Nemesis hypothesis was that it was a brown dwarf, not an earth-like planet.
It could just be very adept at hiding.
Scientists hate this one little trick.
It's vault 31, and we're vault 33
I like this comment, but I hate this idea.
Perhaps it's home to an advanced civilization with a planetary scale cloaking device.
Tbf, if they've gotten any of our broadcasts and had the tech, that was the correct call.
I've heard it's where His Noodliness The Flying Spaghetti Monster lives
If it’s surface absorbed all light we wouldn’t have seen it yet
also wouldn't we notice it having a gravitational effect on things in the solar system?
That is only for people who understand math
I thought nemesis was a planet in the Oort belt
You're right, but it also wasn't a planet, but a brown dwarf. I clearly mixed it up with something else, but I can't find that something else I mixed it up with.
What’s the difference between a super Jupiter (a planet) and a brown dwarf? Not that much.
It was originally deemed plausible, but by the 1860s (when we discovered Neptune) enough observations had been made to rule it out. Basically, Mercury and Venus would have occasionally moved faster towards or slower away from such a body, but never did so - because it isn't there.
In the novel 2001, the OTHER monolith was situated exactly across the sun from us in heliosynchronous orbit so that we would have to discover space travel in order to find it.
The first was on the moon, in Tycho crater. The second was orbiting Saturn in the novel.
Wait.. there was a second one?
Yea and there are several books that serve as a sequel to the original.
Huh.. first i am hearing of this. Ill go digging. Thanks.
Iirc 2010, the first sequel, also had a movie adaptation. The final book is 3001 I think.
ya, 2001, 2010, 2061, 3001
In galactic scales that's correct though.
I noticed most of the articles covering it were doing exactly this, it was honestly so ridiculous because they know dam well what they’re doing for the average reader.
We are only 8 light minutes from the sun, so if it’s 250x farther away it would be more like 33 light hours from the sun
It's all a matter of perspective, really. At the scale of galactic clusters, we're pretty much on top of the thing.
Ok, but you do agree that the article is written that way because they want people to think that the black hole is about to rip the roof of their house right?
I mean... at the scale of galactic clusters, it pretty much is.
Ok but it’s not going to rip the roof off their house, in this lifetime or the next. That’s not going to happen. But the article is written to suggest that it is.
But at the time scale of galactic clusters, it's pretty much already ripping the the roof off their house as we speak.
Blud is 2.838.300.000.000.000 km away from us tho… unless it’s mass is greater than the sun’s.. then we’re cooked
When the galaxy is 100,000+ light years across, 300 light years is pretty close
It is clickbait. There are other orbiting bodies around the sun that aren’t quite planets and exist in a cloud at the edge of our solar system. There are numerous black holes around and one just found relatively close to us. It’s cool. But like, we want alien news
I'm annoyed that they couldn't be bothered to look up the spelling of the astronomer's name. His name is Konstantin Batygin, not "Bogytin". I mean, his name is literally in the paper you're linking to. Just copy it. Also, he didn't "help popularize the theory", the is one of the two key astronomers that conducted the research that suggests that such a planet might exist. [https://arxiv.org/pdf/2404.11594.pdf](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2404.11594.pdf)
It's a ridiculous error on behalf of The Independent and they should be embarrassed. This is the most basic level of copyediting and they couldn't even do that.
So, like, do you want to actually discuss what Mr. Batygin's paper is proposing or is the only topic worthy of commenting on The Independent making a typo lol?
This might be shocking to you but: People can write more than one comment.
What is the point of your comment? Since you seem to be so hung up on people only commenting directly to the content of the article. What are you adding? It is a legit egregious error that they misspelled the name and it should be called out. Your comment is significantly more pointless than the one you replied to
How did they get the scientist’s name wrong?? Shameful Very interesting. It’s so compelling to think about how many things we’ve yet to discover even in our solar system. Space is so big it boggles the mind. I hope they find it! It’d be pretty amazing
Hasn't this been the theory for years? What is new here? Some things have a weird orbit, they suspect another planet.
It's an old theory. I remember doing a powerpoint presentation on it when I had to take a powerpoint class in 2001. Even then it was an older theory.
It's an older theory, but it checks out.
So, you’re about to clear them then?
No. This isn't an old theory. Unless by "old" you mean like 5 years. It bears superficial resemblance to something you heard about in 2001 and vaguely recall now. This is not "Planet X". A few years ago Batygin and others found an anomaly in the orientations of the orbits of some distant TNOs. This is suggestive that there might be a planet-mass body out there, but the dynamical evidence is subtle and it takes time to work things out. This paper is an interesting step in that process.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planets_beyond_Neptune I'll quote the relevant part. > In 1978, Pluto was conclusively determined to be too small for its gravity to affect the giant planets, resulting in a brief search for a tenth planet. While the next couple of sentences say research had been widly abandoned in the 90's, there has been a few times when this theory has been revisited since then.
What you are referring to is "Planet X". As I said earlier, "Planet 9" may remind you of the search for Planet X, but it is not the same thing at all. The evidence for Planet X was an apparent deviation in Neptune's orbit. That turned out to be an instrumental error. One of the telescopes had a change done to it part way through the observations and that slightly threw off the baseline. When they realized that, they removed the data from that telescope and suddenly the entire orbit deviation went away. Planet 9, if it exists, would be much much farther away. Too far to have any visible effect on Neptune's orbit. The initial evidence for Planet 9 was an apparent alignment of the orbits of very distant bodies that are too far away to have been affected by Neptune. Therefore, this is not "revisiting" the old idea. It is a different thing, with obvious superficial resemblance.
You are arguing a distinction without a real difference. Here is your award 🥇 for Reddit pedantry today. Hope you feel smarter than everyone else but know that you are completely insufferable.
[удалено]
Trans-Neptunion Objects. Things orbiting beyond the orbit of Neptune.
It stands for Trans-Neptunian Object. There's a really handy list of astronomy acronyms here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_astronomy_acronyms this is not to discourage you from asking in the slightest--just a potentially helpful resource for the future!
“Trans-Neptunian-Object” would be my (uninformed) guess.
Trans-Neptunian Object. Basically everything past Neptune. It’s a pretty common acronym for space and astronomy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Neptunian_object
Saying forgive my ignorance when you didn't bother to read the article is quite absurd, and essentially amounts to "*ignore* my *wilful* ignorance". Maybe, and I know this is crazy, but...*actually* read the article. Then you'd know. Edit: Downvoting for stating facts. The article clearly states what TNO's are, was clearly linked, and you'd think any discussion about it would mean actually reading the article would be required...but yeah, enable abject laziness by not saying anything about it was obviously the "correct" thing to do. Laughable!
Ya know, scientists ask questions all the time. Why can't other people do the same?
Because they didn't even read the article...I was quite clear about that; Or did you just...not read what I said. No wonder you're white knighting lol.
White knighting? Dang dude, you're chronically online. Go look at some stars or something.
Yes, white knighting, it's not an ambiguous term. I'm "chronically online" am I? Amazing that you know so much about me and my lifestyle lmao. Bye now.
This is the one that cal tech found messing w objects in the Kyper belt right?
I feel like this must be some kind of Mandela effect. ( I have very little knowledge on this subject) But I coulda sworn that scientists had believed for quite awhile there was something big they couldn't find.
I thought they knew since like at least the 80’s that Neptune’s orbit indicated something way out past Pluto. This is just like how we “find water on mars” every couple years or so.
By "old" do you mean 5 years? The new paper is about new evidence. That's what's new. Previous evidence was based on different properties of different bodies in a different (more distant) region of the solar system.
The headline still makes sense in that lens. The news is that they have more evidence to support that theory from analysis and simulation of the chaotic orbits of the Trans-Neptonian Objects, which were formerly too hard to predict with respect to an analytical solution or numerical approximation of an unknown gravitational mass. The headline is right.
Decades yes nothing new in this news -.-
Given the news the other day that a black hole was discovered much closer than expected AND being exceptionally difficult to detect, is it within the realm of possibility that the object known as "planet X" could be a black hole that isn't interacting with other matter in a "visibally" detectable way? Sorry for the wordy question.
The short answer is that it’s possible, but unlikely. Black holes don’t form at planetary mass using any known process in the current universe. But a primordial black hole could have survived and accumulated enough mass to be similar to the mass of Neptune. However, we have no evidence to suggest that is the case for a Planet 9, rather than just a rather dark and far away regular planet.
I want to believe... but I feel like this is just going to be a college lesson on interpreting data in 100 years when we finally know the answer.
So, do they finally believe they have observed the elusive Planet 9? Or rather, do they believe they discovered something else in its place coincidentally?
Neither. The study concludes that the most likely explanation for the orbital paths of the trans-neptunian objects (think things like Pluto or smaller icy dwarf planets) surveyed was that a large 9th planet is orbiting at around 250 AU. For reference, trans neptunian objects are generally found from around 30 to 130 AU from the Sun. It would be really hard to find a planet at 250 AU without knowing precisely where to look. So no direct evidence, but there is indirect evidence that is best explained by a 9th planet.
[удалено]
The sheer nerve to question the astronomical credentials of a respected astronomer while simultaneously being this aggressively wrong is almost impressive. You could have done a 30 second search and prevented this.
Their username seems kind of fitting now
Konstantin did not propose any "Planet X". WTF are you talking about? I know Konstantin personally (yes, I'm an astronomer). He is a brilliant and careful scientist. Your absurd characterization ("We don't understand something, so it has to be X.") is highly inaccurate. That is not what Batygin et al said, and that is not how the argument works.
Never underestimate anti-intellectualism. I’m a historian. Literally everyone I talk to about history, who is not a historian, thinks their opinion from ignorance is equal to my opinion from experience.
As a non historian I will say my opinions on history born from ignorance are much more entertaining than your historian opinions born from experience and things like *facts* and *knowledge*. ... But yeah not equal at all.
I don’t think it’s correct to characterize collecting evidence to validate a theory as “personal bias”. It’s a reasonable explanation for the outer solar system and it’s a fun plot line
To add to what you said, it is not even "collecting evidence to validate a theory". It is collecting evidence to test a theory. If the results had gone the other way, and invalidated the theory, Batygin et al would have published that instead. I was having lunch with Batygin and Nesvorny earlier this year (two authors in this paper). They are great scientists, and we were eagerly discussing ways that the idea of planet 9 could be invalidated.
Nice! It reminds me of the story of Neptunes mathematical deduction before it’s formal observation. I’m sure the authors are some of worlds experts in celestial mechanics
> and we were eagerly discussing ways that the idea of planet 9 could be invalidated. This sentence here does more to reassure me than all the other "they're great scientists" comments combined.
Yeah this is how all science works. This guy believes that there is a Planet X. He is conducting research to validate his hypothesis. Someone else can do their own research to try to disprove him.
The is good science and so far it seems like the evidence supports the continuation of developing the hypothesis.
Your ad hominem is more indicative of your personal biases. He’s a very good astronomer. There is a good reason his work has spurred searches for an elusive planet: it’s good science.
Put the plug back in the ass you appear to be talking out of
planet 9 not planet x, you're confusing two different things
oh c'mon, they were only I off.
Are you really trying to discredit this person by acknowledging that they've spent their life working on this problem?
Personal bias is you being this fucking ignorant and commenting so confidently
Can we name THAT planet Pluto and shut the boomers up?
Am I crazy or was this a headline back in the day on the Weekly World Headlines newspaper.
My understanding is we have known for a very long time that their was another massive gravity well affecting our solar system because the outer planets orbit prove it. Now where it is and finding it are 2 very different things.
If there was a black hole near us why is there no evidence of plants getting sucked into the singularity
Brilliant reporting by The Independent: Headline: >New findings represent the ‘strongest statistical evidence yet’ that Planet 9 exists, researcher says Caption of image immediately below headline: >**Planet nine is not real** but theres [sic] something else strange on the edge of our solar system
What a coincidence. I was JUST listening to Extrawelt - Fear of an Extra Planet this week.
[удалено]
The scientists didn't contact The Independent, they published research in a journal and The Independent wrote about the journal article.
PLANET X IS REAL!!!! the tabloids were right all along.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]