• errer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    7 months ago

    This same group has been pushing this theory for a decade with no direct evidence. Each paper is just confirmation bias in action.

    • just_another_person@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      Some amateur types have been pushing this for decades with zero evidence, but as the article says, a legit pair from Caltech finally found some circumstancial evidence it could be possible, and this expanded group is just throwing more on the pile. I think it’s just one of those “Well…let’s say it’s possible, here’s what we’d be looking at for evidence…” kind of deals.

  • subignition@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    7 months ago

    A new planet in a distant orbit, you say?
    In before the signal is older than the universe itself.

  • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    I find it amusing that we can prove the existence of black holes thousands of light years away and glean the state of the universe at its earliest moments, but we can’t decide whether there’s a rock big enough to count as a planet floating around the inside rim of the Oort Cloud.

    • Audacious@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      7 months ago

      It might be a miscalculation of orbital body models, which has happened before. Urbain Le Verrier was able to predict Neptune’s existence. Then he tried to predict a planet between Mercury and the Sun, because the current Newtonian physics wasn’t lining up to observations, a similar situation to how Neptune was found. Then Einstein’s work on gravity modeled the orbital bodies more accurately, ending the debate if there was another planet closer to the sun than Mercury. Just a different food-for-thought point of view, as I don’t know what the answer is obviously.

  • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    7 months ago

    Science and history are fun because we keep adding new information and proving / disproving theories.

  • BossDj@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    The team acknowledges that other forces could be at play that might explain the behavior that they simulated but suggest they are less likely.

    Space Whales

    • Tarquinn2049@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      Unfortunately, Pluto was a victim of how hard it is/was for us to detect planets and other objects at that distance. It was the first one we saw for a while, but once we got a clearer picture, there was no way we could keep calling it a planet.

        • accideath@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          But then why isn‘t Ceres also a Planet? Or Eris? Or Quaoar? Or any of the other objects classified as dwarf planets

          The answer is easy: Besides their size, they all behave very differently from the actual Planets. Doesn’t mean they’re any less important, they’re just something slightly different.