Hawaiian telescopes looking for ninth planet

[Peter Epperson]

This link answers an interesting question about this planet and gives a sense of just how far away it may be https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comm..._to_ninth/

[geochem]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomK


I think it's fair to say there is no standard accretion model, how our planets formed is still a bit of a mystery.

---

Tom, can you suggest a good general reference for current thinking on the various accretion models?

Thanks

[HereOnThePrimalEdge]

There has been no planet found... The researchers developed a computer simulation to try to find out what might be the reason for the unexplained orbits... They kept editing their simulation parameters and determined the size and orbit of a planet that would describe the other orbits.

Many discoveries are not initially based on verifiable physical or visual observation:

Theory of Relativity
Atoms and their constituent parts
Black holes
Dark Matter
etc

Sometimes the existence of a new discovery is first implied, then later verified in some way. We are on that first step now with Planet 9.

[pahoated]

quote:

---

Originally posted by HereOnThePrimalEdge
Sometimes the existence of a new discovery is first implied, then later verified in some way. We are on that first step now with Planet 9.

---

No. There is the scientific method applied. There is no "implied". There is an observation. This observation may be false. Then there is a hypothesis. The hypothesis requires validation before becoming a theory. Theory requires repeatable results to become law. The observation is not necessarily optical. Observations can be arrived at through mathematics. Did gravity exist before Newton noticed it to develop the Universal Laws of Gravitation? Yes, Galileo noticed it. Other people had observed it, and prior to Galileo, it was commonly accepted "knowledge" that heavier things fell faster than lighter things. Wrong. That was because Galileo was one of the early developers of the scientific method, not the bad science method (usually wrapped up in emotions). Even with Newtons Universal Laws of Gravitation, they break down at the quantum level, so science laws can also be quantified as only having jurisdiction within their defined domain.

Muddling and inability to recognize the scientific method, bad science, is harmful, to individuals and society in general. It is not helpful in the least. Right now, there is no planet, only a parameter in a computer simulation. This is a hypothesis, it is hypothetical. There has been no discovery.

"Aloha also means goodbye. Aloha!"

[Guest]

Very exciting news to have a possible 9th planet again, sure helps replace POOR Pluto. If I may, how has this possible planet 9 gone undetected for so long? Also Who got to name this possible planet 9, and why that name was picked? Also where was it possibly discovered(maybe Chile?) or was this all done by guessing and computers?

[HereOnThePrimalEdge]

I think I understand.

SCIENTIFIC METHOD:
There is the scientific method applied. There is no "implied". There is an observation. This observation may be false. Then there is a hypothesis. The hypothesis requires validation before becoming a theory. Theory requires repeatable results to become law. The observation is not necessarily optical. Observations can be arrived at through mathematics.

NOT SCIENTIFIC METHOD USED TO DISCOVER PLANET 9:
Researchers developed a computer simulation to try to find out what might be the reason for the unexplained orbits (HYPOTHESIS?)... their simulation started reproducing observations (VALIDATION?). They kept editing their simulation parameters and determined the size and orbit of a planet that would describe the other orbits (REPEATABLE RESULTS?).

[beejee]

Fascinating Tom, thanks for the great explanation. It really will be interesting to see what is causing the orbital phenomenon.

[terracore]

"Where were this people during the permit process ?"

Maybe my recollection is wrong, but it seems to me they started TMT construction about the same time Merrie Monarch was going on and the protests exploded immediately with a lot of out of town (including out of state) visitors participating. There were people (including non locals) blowing conchs and waving signs at the airport intersection amongst other places. The anti-telescope movement spontaneously combusted. A lot of the people who were on island temporarily... suddenly had a huge interest in this telescope violating the mountain they had never lived near before (or since). But once the ball of snow started rolling, it hasn't stopped.

If they had started construction a month later, maybe it would still be under construction.

ETA: grammar, content

[TomK]

geochem,

"Tom, can you suggest a good general reference for current thinking on the various accretion models?"

I wouldn't say there various accretion models, but the details within the most widely accepted model are still unknown or there are competing theories. Wikipedia actually does a very good job of explaining the Nebular Hypothesis and some of the problems it has:

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

and another Wikipedia page is very good and quite detailed:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_...lar_System

In the past we only had our own solar system to help us understand how planetary systems form, but we're now starting to observe other solar systems, some still being formed, and as you can imagine they will help us understand the process better, especially as we can observe systems that are still forming. However, they are likely to open new cans of worms as well. A couple of nice examples:

https://public.nrao.edu/static/pr/planet...-alma.html

http://www.space.com/31146-alien-planet-...aphed.html

Hope these help a little.

[HereOnThePrimalEdge]

Planet 9 is not the first to be discovered through mathematical models, rather than direct observation.

Scientists who made headlines this week by announcing evidence for a new planet in our solar system are basing the claim entirely on a mathematical model. Nobody’s seen the thing, but the math says it’s there. This isn’t the first time scientists have found a new planet before really finding it.

Neptune:
Batygin said in an interview that their Planet Nine prediction follows the same general concept that led to the discovery of Neptune. In the mid-1800s, astronomers and mathematicians realized that the orbit of Uranus, then the farthest known planet, wasn’t behaving the way Newton’s law of gravity predicted. They calculated that it might be under the influence of a more distant, unseen planet. That turned out to be Neptune.

Pluto:
In the early 20th century, astronomer Percival Lowell calculated a discrepancy in the orbit of Neptune that he attributed to an unseen Planet X. Lowell hired Clyde Tombaugh to look for Planet X, and lo and behold, Tombaugh found Pluto.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-...ew-planet/