Pluto resurrected

[Agent327]

I guess that explains the request to 'go look with telescopes'.

Even the perihelion position wouldn't light up Planet Nine, as the entire orbit is simply too far out. I only pointed out the rather apparent contradiction between an invisible planet and calling for a telescope search.

I explained this in another thread (I think in OT) but this is not proven by a long shot, so it still is an 'if'.

It's only an if if you don't believe their calculations. It's the only possible explanation for aberrations observed. Ergo it exists.

And they most definitely could image it with the telescopes available if it exists and it is as massive as predicted. It won't be a pretty image - maybe just a few pixels - but it could be done. We are already capable of directly imaging planets in other solar systems under the right circumstances. This would be much, much easier than that.

From what I understand the stars can be imaged, and aberrations in light emission let's existence of planets be induced. But if you say photos of the planets themselves exist I'd be happy to see some.

Secondly, no one but you has any clue regarding composition, so for anyone else determination of reflectivity would be impossible. I expect they will be eager to have you tell them the value to plug in there.

I gather you didn't read the article very well. No surprise there.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I gather you didn't read the article very well. No surprise there.

Can't surprise someone who makes up their own facts.

 

[Perfection]

It's the only possible explanation for aberrations observed.

That's not true.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I guess that explains the request to 'go look with telescopes'.

Even the perihelion position wouldn't light up Planet Nine, as the entire orbit is simply too far out. I only pointed out the rather apparent contradiction between an invisible planet and calling for a telescope search.



It's only an if if you don't believe their calculations. It's the only possible explanation for aberrations observed. Ergo it exists.



From what I understand the stars can be imaged, and aberrations in light emission let's existence of planets be induced. But if you say photos of the planets themselves exist I'd be happy to see some.



I gather you didn't read the article very well. No surprise there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_directly_imaged_exoplanets


If this planet exists, seeing it won't be a problem. We won't get pretty pictures but we will definitely be able to see them.


The paper predicts a planet, it does not confirm it. The paper bases the prediction for Planet X based on weird alignments of other Kuiper Belt Objects. It claims that the presence of Planet X best explains these alignments. However, the same paper also makes other claims about KBO's that does not hold up. And even if all of the predictions the paper makes held up, it would still not verify the existence of the planet because it cannot outright falsify (in its current state) all of the other theories that make similar predictions regarding KBO alignment.

Ergo, the planet is not confirmed even if you believe the paper's math.

As uppi points out though, it is the best theoretical case for Planet X there has been is a long time. Which is awesome - we all want there to be a Planet X.

 

[uppi]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_directly_imaged_exoplanets

From that list HD 106906 b is quite relevant (and quite amazing):


That planet is 650 AU from its star and the system is 300 light years from earth, yet we can still image it.

 

[Agent327]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_directly_imaged_exoplanets

If this planet exists, seeing it won't be a problem. We won't get pretty pictures but we will definitely be able to see them.

The paper predicts a planet, it does not confirm it. The paper bases the prediction for Planet X based on weird alignments of other Kuiper Belt Objects. It claims that the presence of Planet X best explains these alignments. However, the same paper also makes other claims about KBO's that does not hold up. And even if all of the predictions the paper makes held up, it would still not verify the existence of the planet because it cannot outright falsify (in its current state) all of the other theories that make similar predictions regarding KBO alignment.

Ergo, the planet is not confirmed even if you believe the paper's math.

As uppi points out though, it is the best theoretical case for Planet X there has been is a long time. Which is awesome - we all want there to be a Planet X.

I note these are planets that emit light. (I thought planets only reflect light, but OK.) Planet 9 is not supposed to 'emit light'. Nor reflect it.

Prediction is an interpretation. I would phrase it differently. And I didn't comment on the other 'predictions'. They may be wrongly calculated or not be the only explanation. Logically, however, I would say that Planet 9 exists. Whether we can observe it or not. (It would, of course, be interesting if it were disproved, from a theoretical point of view.)

Can't surprise someone who makes up their own facts.

Even for you that's a rather vague accusation.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I note these are planets that emit light. (I thought planets only reflect light, but OK.) Planet 9 is not supposed to 'emit light'. Nor reflect it.

Prediction is an interpretation. I would phrase it differently. And I didn't comment on the other 'predictions'. They may be wrongly calculated or not be the only explanation. Logically, however, I would say that Planet 9 exists. Whether we can observe it or not. (It would, of course, be interesting if it were disproved, from a theoretical point of view.)

You realize just about all objects above absolute zero emit light, right?

It's a fair bet that a great deal of the light emitted by any planet is simply from absorption and re-emission of energy from the parent star - particularly in the infrared. In any case, you're trying to carve out a distinction without a difference.


As to the last paragraph, you said:

It's only an if if you don't believe their calculations. It's the only possible explanation for aberrations observed. Ergo it exist

Which is false. You can squabble about the meaning of logic and predictions all you want but you were wrong.

 

[Agent327]

You realize just about all objects above absolute zero emit light, right?

It's a fair bet that a great deal of the light emitted by any planet is simply from absorption and re-emission of energy from the parent star - particularly in the infrared. In any case, you're trying to carve out a distinction without a difference.

I was under the impression that 're-emission' was reflection. It's the difference between a light source (star) and a reflector thereof (planet/satellite). So the distinction matters, as the exoplanets can only be seen because they reflect the light emitted by the star they orbit. There may be plenty more exoplanets we can't see because they're too far away from the light source to be noticed.

In short, it's not a distinction without a difference. It's a rather essential difference.

As to the last paragraph, you said:
Which is false. You can squabble about the meaning of logic and predictions all you want but you were wrong.

I may be, but you're not showing how. That's the nice thing about logic. You need to reason. So 'You were wrong' doesn't qualify.

If the logical explanation for satellite orbital aberrations is an extra planet, then that planet exists - irrespective of whether we can see it or not.

But as I said, it would be interesting if it were disproved. That however is a bit trickier. (Again, it doesn't happen by saying 'they are wrong'. That's not proof. That would be a claim in need of proof.)

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I was under the impression that 're-emission' was reflection.

It's not.

Rather than correct your whole post sentence by sentence I figured I'd just stop at the first error and leave the rest to Hobbsyoyo if he feels so inclined.

Re-emission is a process involving absorption, an interval, and re-emission.

Example: Put a brick out in the sun. Pick up the brick after sunset. The brick is still warm, and it is emitting in the infrared.

There are a fair number of photoelectric as well as nuclear processes that provide mechanisms for re-emission. In many of them the energy of the emission is not the same as the incident absorbed energy. It is possible for a high energy incident to trigger multiple lower energy re-emissions, and it is also possible for several absorption incidents to produce one higher energy re-emission.

 

[uppi]

I was under the impression that 're-emission' was reflection.

Did you ever wonder why it gets cold at night? Hint: It has nothing to do with reflection.

I may be, but you're not showing how. That's the nice thing about logic. You need to reason. So 'You were wrong' doesn't qualify.

If the logical explanation for satellite orbital aberrations is an extra planet, then that planet exists - irrespective of whether we can see it or not.

But as I said, it would be interesting if it were disproved. That however is a bit trickier. (Again, it doesn't happen by saying 'they are wrong'. That's not proof. That would be a claim in need of proof.)

As far as I know, nobody says 'they are wrong'. You are wrong, because you do not understand the issue. This putative planet is not the logical explanation for those iceballs' orbits. It is one possible explanation, among many others. Only if you falsify all of the other explanations you could be certain that this planet exists.

 

[Bootstoots]

I was under the impression that 're-emission' was reflection.

Everything emits radiation, with an intensity and peak wavelength that depends on their temperature. Humans, for instance, and everything that is our temperature have a wavelength peak in the mid-infrared. As you heat something up, the peak wavelength gets shorter. The reason that hot things like electric stovetops and incandescent light filaments are red, orange, or yellow is that they are so hot (>1000 C or so to be visible, as high as 3000 C for a light filament) that they emit substantial amounts of visible light.

Of course, it is also true that the visible light we see from planets in the Solar System comes from reflection. But the fraction that is absorbed heats up the surface, and the temperature increase results in emission of infrared light from the planet itself.

Take a look at the article on black-body radiation. This is a useful idealized model of how an object that absorbs all light that hits it still emits its own radiation, which depends on its temperature. 'Black' is used in the sense that it doesn't reflect any light that hits it; it does emit light which can be visible if it is hot enough.

Very large exoplanets are hot enough internally that they can be imaged in the infrared. The heat comes both from absorption from the star's light and from the planet internally, and the latter is enough by itself to see a very large planet, which is how something 650 AU away from its star (HD 106906 b) can still be imaged directly.

 

[Agent327]

Alright. I thought light re-emission was what was being meant.

Did you ever wonder why it gets cold at night? Hint: It has nothing to do with reflection.

There's no sunlight at night. Seems to make a huge difference temperaturewise.

As far as I know, nobody says 'they are wrong'. You are wrong, because you do not understand the issue. This putative planet is not the logical explanation for those iceballs' orbits. It is one possible explanation, among many others. Only if you falsify all of the other explanations you could be certain that this planet exists.

Well, I can quote from a few posts down, but I imagine you can read for yourself. I would also imagine that arriving at Planet 9 could only have been done by excluding all the other possibilities. Otherwise, you can't state the existence of said planet period.

So, I gather you are arguing this is a hypothesis. I'd like to see a better one then. So far no one has argued a better one.

Perhaps you can explain again what I don't understand exactly?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Perhaps you can explain again what I don't understand exactly?

I know!

That your fervent belief doesn't magically convert a hypothesis to a fact...even in the absence of alternative hypotheses. That would appear to be what you don't understand. At least one thing.

By the way, the cluster of "disturbed" objects has a statistically significant probability of being sheer coincidence, requiring no hypothesis at all.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I was under the impression that 're-emission' was reflection. It's the difference between a light source (star) and a reflector thereof (planet/satellite). So the distinction matters, as the exoplanets can only be seen because they reflect the light emitted by the star they orbit. There may be plenty more exoplanets we can't see because they're too far away from the light source to be noticed.

This entire paragraph is false. Not only do planets reflect and also re-emit light that ultimately came from their parent star, the larger ones also tend to give off quite a lot of energy all on their own from internal heat sources (radioactive decay, atmospheric/lithosphere compression, etc). You're also presupposing that we can't see very distant objects because (as you have falsely claimed) they don't reflect enough light to be seen. This is totally innacurate - as uppi previously pointed out, the fact that we can see very distant, very tiny objects like KBO's is what led to this theory in the first place. The KBO's are an order of magnitude smaller than the hypothesized Planet X and are very cold (i.e. they emit very little light). We are able to detect them principally from the reflection of solar light they give off. Thus the hypothesized Planet X would be very easy to spot once we know where to look.

In short, it's not a distinction without a difference. It's a rather essential difference.

Also false.

I may be, but you're not showing how. That's the nice thing about logic. You need to reason. So 'You were wrong' doesn't qualify.

Excuse me? I'm the one who provided source links to explain my case when it wasn't really necessary. All you have done is make illogical statements and exclamations of 'facts' without any proof of your own while we have constructed logical arguments and presented sources for them.

If the logical explanation for satellite orbital aberrations is an extra planet, then that planet exists - irrespective of whether we can see it or not.

As has been stated before, it's not the only logical explanation for the weird behavior of the KBO objects. You just refuse to acknowledge that.

But as I said, it would be interesting if it were disproved. That however is a bit trickier. (Again, it doesn't happen by saying 'they are wrong'. That's not proof. That would be a claim in need of proof.)

No one is saying it is wrong! Hahaha

All we have done is refute your absolutist claim that it absolutely must exist because 'logic'. I've even fought off my inborn tendency to snark, troll and put-down because in the end I do like you and your posts. But your stubbornness to concede any point (no matter how well sourced) and your own lack of proof of any of your statements is trying my patience.

As for cold nights - the principal reason they are cold is because the Earth is emitting infrared radiation. Without that mechanism, the days and nights would be equally hot as we'd be retaining all that heat (and our planet would spiral into a greenhouse nearly instantly). Coincidentally, cloudless nights tend to be much colder than cloudy ones because clouds tend to trap and/or reflect a lot of energy that the Earth emits that is otherwise lost to outer space.

Edit: Re-read the last few posts and realized I essentially repeated a lot that had already been said. It bears repeating though as it has taken nearly a page to get you to believe in black body radiation in the first place.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Well, I can quote from a few posts down, but I imagine you can read for yourself. I would also imagine that arriving at Planet 9 could only have been done by excluding all the other possibilities. Otherwise, you can't state the existence of said planet period.

So, I gather you are arguing this is a hypothesis. I'd like to see a better one then. So far no one has argued a better one.

Perhaps you can explain again what I don't understand exactly?

I wish you would have quoted some posts as they were directly relevant. As stated multiple times, there is other explanations for KBO behavior besides Planet X. Additionally, the theory behind Planet X makes predictions about the behavior of other KBO's that has been shown to be false. Now that doesn't invalidate the entire theory but it does go a long way to showing that this theory is not the only possible explanation of KBO behavior.

Until Planet X is proven to be there either through direct observation or with the construction of a theory that is completely indisputable proof of its existence, (which this one isn't) there is literally an infinite number of other theories that can be hypothesized to explain the behavior of the KBO's in question - including random chance.

Also no one can explain to you what you don't understand when your default stance is to dismiss everything out of hand with an appeal to faulty logic while ignoring information and sources presented to you.

 

[Bootstoots]

If it was entirely knocked out of the solar system, it would be considered a 'rogue planet'. I'm not sure if there is a rigorous definition for those as there is for 'planet', namely because we haven't found any yet. They are exceedingly hard to spot.

I just read an article where they discovered that the one rogue planet they had discovered turned out to be in the orbit of a very distant (to the planet) and dim brown dwarf and so is no longer a 'rogue'.

There are actually a few known sub-brown dwarfs/rogue planets (< 13 Jupiter masses, so no deuterium fusion). I don't know if it's possible to tell which ones are ejected from a solar system (rogue planets) versus which ones formed independently (sub-brown dwarfs), or if that distinction really has any practical significance.

Here's an interesting one: WISE_0855&#8722;0714. It's the closest known sub-brown dwarf/rogue planet - only 7.5 ly away, closer than every known star and brown dwarf except the Alpha Centauri system, Barnard's star, and the Luhman 16 brown dwarf binary. Mass is about 3-10 Jupiter masses; hopefully we can discover a moon so that we can determine the mass more precisely. It's also the coldest known object outside a star system: temps well below freezing, at &#8722;48 to &#8722;13 °C.[/url]

Other wiki articles, with lists of the few known sub-brown dwarfs/rogue planets:
Sub-brown dwarf
Rogue planet

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I've even fought off my inborn tendency to snark, troll and put-down

I just wanted to acknowledge you for having made that effort, since I myself did not bother.

 

[uppi]

Alright. I thought light re-emission was what was being meant.

The definition of light is a bit murky, but part of black-body radiation spectrum is what is commonly considered light. In fact most of the light that the sun emits is actually just black-body radiation.

There's no sunlight at night. Seems to make a huge difference temperaturewise.

I did not ask why it is not getting warmer at night, but why it is getting cold. That requires not only the absence of a heat source but also the presence of a heat sink.

So, I gather you are arguing this is a hypothesis. I'd like to see a better one then. So far no one has argued a better one.

Perhaps you can explain again what I don't understand exactly?

There are plenty of hypotheses, some of them brought forward by the authors of that paper themselves:
- It might just be a statistical fluke
- The sample they analyze (just 6 objects) is not representative but cherry picked. This might have happened because we have not detected the objects that would be the counterevidence, yet.
- There are other (yet to be detected) objects that explain the pattern.
- Their model of solar system formation is wrong and the pattern is expected without an extra planet
- Likewise, their model of gravity might be wrong

Some of these are quite unlikely, but for others it is hard to quantify how good they actually are. This makes deciding which is the 'best' very difficult. and some are quite hard to falsify. So in the end the existence of this planet should not be considered certain until someone gets an image of it (or presents other indisputable evidence).

 

[Atticus]

In case y'all have it too easy to fall asleep at night, imagine if the lost planet comes back and knocks the Earth off from the orbit.

I wonder what would happen when the scientists gathered out that this is going to happen. Would they start to plan death star to blow it off before it comes near? Or would they start a crazy sex and drugs infused bacchanal?

EDIT: Some serious silliness about center of mass and gravity removed.

 

[Agent327]

I did not ask why it is not getting warmer at night, but why it is getting cold. That requires not only the absence of a heat source but also the presence of a heat sink.

I did not tell you why it is getting warmer at night. Primarily because it doesn't.

But just out of interest, which of the following heat sinks are you talking about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_sink_(disambiguation)

There are plenty of hypotheses, some of them brought forward by the authors of that paper themselves:
- It might just be a statistical fluke
- The sample they analyze (just 6 objects) is not representative but cherry picked. This might have happened because we have not detected the objects that would be the counterevidence, yet.
- There are other (yet to be detected) objects that explain the pattern.
- Their model of solar system formation is wrong and the pattern is expected without an extra planet
- Likewise, their model of gravity might be wrong

Some of these are quite unlikely, but for others it is hard to quantify how good they actually are. This makes deciding which is the 'best' very difficult. and some are quite hard to falsify. So in the end the existence of this planet should not be considered certain until someone gets an image of it (or presents other indisputable evidence).

That doesn't follow. Anyway, what I gathered from the article is that they ruled out these other hypotheses. Otherwise, presenting their conclusion would indeed be cherry picking. (As in, we pick this hypothesis because we like it best.) We can rule this out, as the article wouldn't even be fit for publication, scientifically speaking.

I'm still waiting for a better argument. Until then I stick with: Planet 9 exists.

Perhaps I should give an analogy. For quite some time our solar system had X number of planets. Then planet Y was discovered, followed by planet Z. But until that time: our solar system has X planets was a true statement - even though factually incorrect, this was the knowledge of the time.

Perhaps this analogy is unnecessary, but one likes to be thorough. I could extend the analogy, but I don't think that's necessary either.