re: Scientists Find Evidence for Ninth Planet in Solar System

How the hell do the scientists who study milliseconds after the big bang

or

Scientists who study multi-verse / expansion

or

Scientists who see galaxies 10^XX light years away


...all miss this 9th planet that is, relatively speaking, right beneath our galactic noses?

quote:

---

this is all a load of shite and man never walked on the moon or else we would have been able to count the damn planets then.

---

please be a troll

quote:

---

Now imagine that your neighbor's house as a far off galaxy, the mosquito as the 9th planet, your front porch as earth.

---

I think your example breaks down here I guess, the planet -although very far off- is nowhere remotely close to being as far off as even the nearest galaxy to the Milky Way. By the looks of it the object is still gravitationally bound by the sun.

But yeah point taken, in the vastness of space and when dealing with a non light-emitting object it is still difficult a heck to see these things. Using gravitational disturbances to find planets is a proven method, it's how they discovered the existence of Neptune and Pluto.

quote:

---

isht a planet b/c it isn't capable of sustaining other celestial bodies orbiting it

---

quote:

---

I believe Pluto has two moons

---

I believe Pluto has two moons[/quote]

Not directed at you man, but I know what the f I'm talking about...just took astronomy less than a year ago & aced that shite.

Pluto isn't a planet , its closest of the "9" to the edge around where comets are formed. It does NOT have any celestial bodies that orbit it (which is a deal breaker for classification as a planet).

There ARE "moons" around it, but they are more so other celestial bodies similar to Pluto, but do not directly orbit it.

If you research this yourself .. You'll find every planet that does have moons- those moons move in a definite orbit around those planets..

.Pluto does not have those, even if they are "moons".

ETA: Pluto is too small & too far away from the sun to sustain the requisite gravitational pull needed to keep an orbiting moon in an orbiting path. Further, it doesn't have volcanic activity to heat it either, which is another helpful component for a planet to gain the ability to have a capturing, sustained gravitational pull . You need MASS, RELATIVE DUSTANCE FROM SUN, & VOLCANIC ACTIVITY to create these conditions, and Pluto does not have these.
This is from recall, so feel free to counter with textbook evidence, or I can grab mine as needed. It's a fascinating subject

I had a good buzz on when I wrote that earlier, It made sense in my head lol

quote:

---

Pluto doesn't meet the definition of a planet per an international regulatory body of scientists, not one guy.

---

Correction, only 5% of astronomers voted on this. Know your facts.