Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Race to discover Planet Nine using astronomy and new computational techniques

spectrum.ieee.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 63 posts

Re: Race to discover Planet Nine using astronomy and new computational techniques

#51

Post by svachalek »

Robotbeat wrote: post #43

If "Planet Nine" doesn't exist, that will be fitting Karma for those who proposed it, since they developed the new definition of planet specifically to exclude Pluto and any other planets like Pluto. (I disagree with that definition as it made no consultation with planetary scientists who actually study planets.)

I don't follow. Planet Nine is not expected to be another dwarf planet like Pluto. There are a handful of other dwarf planets known already, some bigger than Pluto, and it's expected that there are hundreds more yet to be discovered.

Re: Race to discover Planet Nine using astronomy and new computational techniques

#52

Post by JoeDaDude »

Robotbeat wrote: post #43

If "Planet Nine" doesn't exist, that will be fitting Karma for those who proposed it, since they developed the new definition of planet specifically to exclude Pluto and any other planets like Pluto. (I disagree with that definition as it made no consultation with planetary scientists who actually study planets.)

I am intrigued by your conspiracy theory and would like to subscribe to your newsletter. Why did they want to "specifically exclude Pluto"?

Pluto is notoriously different from the other eight planets, as can be explained in very elementary terms [1]. So, not to open any wounds, but the question is inevitably raised as to whether it is the same kind of "thing" as the other planetary bodies.

[1]. https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/editorial/pluto%E2%80%99s...

Re: Race to discover Planet Nine using astronomy and new computational techniques

#53

Post by Zardoz84 »

autokad wrote: post #50
fooker wrote: post #8

What do you define as a planet though? If you consider our sun a frame of reference, you might find that technically some far away objects bigger than the sun have complex periodical movements around the sun.

definition of a planet as follows: a planet is what ever arbitrary metrics Brown can come up with that demotes Pluto and includes the other 8 (sort of) so that he can write papers / gain fame / etc. They didn't come up with criteria and found Pluto didn't fit, they kept coming up with criteria UNTIL Pluto didn't fit and the other planets did fit. Brown has no army over me, and I don't buy into the academic nonsense.…

Another American that can't live if Pluto is a planet....

Re: Race to discover Planet Nine using astronomy and new computational techniques

#54

Post by Robotbeat »

scott_s wrote: post #47
Robotbeat wrote: post #43

If "Planet Nine" doesn't exist, that will be fitting Karma for those who proposed it, since they developed the new definition of planet specifically to exclude Pluto and any other planets like Pluto. (I disagree with that definition as it made no consultation with planetary scientists who actually study planets.)

I'm confused by your parenthetical, as the definition that excludes Pluto (and Eris) was arrived at by the International Astronomical Union ( https://www.iau.org/ ).

IAU is made of astronomers (i.e. People who study stars and stuff), not so many planetary scientists (who specifically study planets).

Re: Race to discover Planet Nine using astronomy and new computational techniques

#55

Post by Robotbeat »

scott_s wrote: post #47
Robotbeat wrote: post #43

If "Planet Nine" doesn't exist, that will be fitting Karma for those who proposed it, since they developed the new definition of planet specifically to exclude Pluto and any other planets like Pluto. (I disagree with that definition as it made no consultation with planetary scientists who actually study planets.)

I'm confused by your parenthetical, as the definition that excludes Pluto (and Eris) was arrived at by the International Astronomical Union ( https://www.iau.org/ ).

IAU is made of astronomers (i.e. People who study stars and stuff), not so many planetary scientists (who specifically study planets).

Re: Race to discover Planet Nine using astronomy and new computational techniques

#56

Post by Robotbeat »

JoeDaDude wrote: post #52
Robotbeat wrote: post #43

If "Planet Nine" doesn't exist, that will be fitting Karma for those who proposed it, since they developed the new definition of planet specifically to exclude Pluto and any other planets like Pluto. (I disagree with that definition as it made no consultation with planetary scientists who actually study planets.)

I am intrigued by your conspiracy theory and would like to subscribe to your newsletter. Why did they want to "specifically exclude Pluto"? Pluto is notoriously different from the other eight planets, as can be explained in very elementary terms [1]. So, not to open any wounds, but the question is inevitably raised as to whether it is the same kind of "thing" as the other planetary bodies. [1]. https://airandspace.si…

The actual planet itself is very active geologically and has a whole system of moons. The only reason you'd say it's very unlike the other 8 is due to orbital dynamics, i.e. due to other bodies besides itself. This is a strongly anti-planetary-science bias, IMHO.

Re: Race to discover Planet Nine using astronomy and new computational techniques

#57

Post by Robotbeat »

JoeDaDude wrote: post #52
Robotbeat wrote: post #43

If "Planet Nine" doesn't exist, that will be fitting Karma for those who proposed it, since they developed the new definition of planet specifically to exclude Pluto and any other planets like Pluto. (I disagree with that definition as it made no consultation with planetary scientists who actually study planets.)

I am intrigued by your conspiracy theory and would like to subscribe to your newsletter. Why did they want to "specifically exclude Pluto"? Pluto is notoriously different from the other eight planets, as can be explained in very elementary terms [1]. So, not to open any wounds, but the question is inevitably raised as to whether it is the same kind of "thing" as the other planetary bodies. [1]. https://airandspace.si…

The actual planet itself is very active geologically and has a whole system of moons. The only reason you'd say it's very unlike the other 8 is due to orbital dynamics, i.e. due to other bodies besides itself. This is a strongly anti-planetary-science bias, IMHO.

Re: Race to discover Planet Nine using astronomy and new computational techniques

#58

Post by Robotbeat »

svachalek wrote: post #51
Robotbeat wrote: post #43

If "Planet Nine" doesn't exist, that will be fitting Karma for those who proposed it, since they developed the new definition of planet specifically to exclude Pluto and any other planets like Pluto. (I disagree with that definition as it made no consultation with planetary scientists who actually study planets.)

I don't follow. Planet Nine is not expected to be another dwarf planet like Pluto. There are a handful of other dwarf planets known already, some bigger than Pluto, and it's expected that there are hundreds more yet to be discovered.

Some may be bigger than Earth, yet still classed as dwarf planets. Therefore, I think the definition is BS as it has nothing to do with the planet itself (such as its geography, size, etc) but only the bodies around it.

Re: Race to discover Planet Nine using astronomy and new computational techniques

#59

Post by zipwitch »

Robotbeat wrote: post #56
JoeDaDude wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am intrigued by your conspiracy theory and would like to subscribe to your newsletter. Why did they want to "specifically exclude Pluto"? Pluto is notoriously different from the other eight planets, as can be explained in very elementary terms [1]. So, not to open any wounds, but the question is inevitably raised as to whether it is the same kind of "thing" as the other planetary bodies. [1]. https://airandspace.si…

The actual planet itself is very active geologically and has a whole system of moons. The only reason you'd say it's very unlike the other 8 is due to orbital dynamics, i.e. due to other bodies besides itself. This is a strongly anti-planetary-science bias, IMHO.

Sooo... mass and composition are irrelevant? Because Pluto (and its fellows, like Eris) are smaller than a half-dozen moons. Pluto has less than _five percent_ of the mass of the smallest planet, Mercury. It is also mostly _ice_ unlike the inner (rocky) planets and the gas giants.

And variety of solar-system bodies are geologically active, from the inner planets, through numerous moons, down to comets and asteroids, and probably many other Trans-Neptunian Objects like Pluto (many of which also have moons). Your proposed criteria fail to be useful.

Re: Race to discover Planet Nine using astronomy and new computational techniques

#60

Post by scott_s »

Robotbeat wrote: post #54
scott_s wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm confused by your parenthetical, as the definition that excludes Pluto (and Eris) was arrived at by the International Astronomical Union ( https://www.iau.org/ ).

IAU is made of astronomers (i.e. People who study stars and stuff), not so many planetary scientists (who specifically study planets).

I think it's fair to define planets based on an astronomical perspective; it's clear that Pluto, Eris and things like it, astronomically, belong to a different class than the other planets. Pluto is now classified as a dwarf planet. If we didn't "demote" it to a dwarf planet, then we would have to define a new term for the existing planets.
Post reply on HN