New evidence points toward Ninth Planet in the solar system

[Heat]

Also for those curious, the chance of our solar system being the way it is, with planets gravitational fields, is a 0.07% chance without another(suggested) planet existing in the opposite direction as Article describes.

[Jackalope]

I'd say there's a 100% chance of our solar system being the way it is, with or without another planet.

The 0.07% figure should be taken with an enormous grain of salt, IMO.

[Gawdzilla]

That's a name, not a classification.  A name can contain any degree of tradition desired.  A classification should be useful first.

If any plutoids similar in size to Pluto qualifies as a planet, it reduces the usefulness of the planet classification, since Pluto is really a very minor body and probably quite average for a plutoids and there could well be hundred or even thousands plutoids not far smaller than Pluto.

I agree. I was talking about the name, not the classification. Just as the planet classified as Sol 3 is traditionally named Earth, despite being a carryover from primitive distinctions between earth, sky and water.

This is all my subjective opinion anyway. But fuck opinion, right? It's not like I carry any real weight.

Actually, it's "mass", not "weight".

[Heat]

I'd say there's a 100% chance of our solar system being the way it is, with or without another planet.

The 0.07% figure should be taken with an enormous grain of salt, IMO.

My phrasing may have been incorrect, but you know what i meant lol..

That the gravitational..formations, or whatever, is a 0.07%, without the existence of this other planet in the opposite direction.

Here, this will help you better understand what I mean by "Gravitational formation"(The orbits of the planets labeled)

[Anomalocaris]

I'd say there's a 100% chance of our solar system being the way it is, with or without another planet.

The 0.07% figure should be taken with an enormous grain of salt, IMO.

My phrasing may have been incorrect, but you know what i meant lol..

That the gravitational..formations, or whatever, is a 0.07%, without the existence of this other planet in the opposite direction.

Here, this will help you better understand what I mean by "Gravitational formation"(The orbits of the planets labeled)

And what is the chance that this seemingly improbable gravitational formation in fact is not real, but the artifact of some observational biase?

[Heat]

My phrasing may have been incorrect, but you know what i meant lol..

That the gravitational..formations, or whatever, is a 0.07%, without the existence of this other planet in the opposite direction.

Here, this will help you better understand what I mean by "Gravitational formation"(The orbits of the planets labeled)

And what is the chance that this seemingly improbable gravitational formation in fact is not real, but the artifact of some observational biase?

Exactly 01.234543210%.

[Anomalocaris]

As I thought.

[Gawdzilla]

The publication of the findings is an invitation to poke holes in the theory. That's how science works. If it stands up to close scrutiny then it's good to go. If not, "we've learned another way it doesn't work."

[vorlon13]

Not defending claim, per se, but as soon as Sedna was discovered (the first or nearly the first of the noted 'flock') there was speculation as to how it was perturbed into it's odd orbit.

I hadn't been following subsequent reports of so many more oddly oriented orbits in these distant critters, but while it might be 'OK' for one object to be a curiosity, when you get 6 of them with striking similarities in eccentricity, and similar orientation in 3D space, it invites study to figure out what is going on.

I was just pondering a big collision of a moon around a KBO possibly leading to such a configuration, but immediately, I realized while it might generate a similar 'flock', the original parent body of the satellite would be much larger, much brighter, much closer, much more resistant to disruption, and ALREADY discovered.

You see the flaw in my idea, the parent body doesn't exist. So I can appreciate many alternatives have been considered, and good old Occam is guiding speculation as to how we might get a configuration as has been discovered.

[Anomalocaris]

Is there any intrinsic biase in the manner with which KBO searches are made which predisposes them to finding objects in particular direction in the sky, or follow orbits or particular Eccentricities?

Btw, regarding the notion that KBO thus far discovered were similar due to some common origin rather than common subsequent influence, what about they were all remnants of a collision event that completely disrupted the parent body of a system of moons?  The remains of the parent body and any prior moons subsequently evolved to its current range of orientations and eccentricities, while the parent body is no longer there?

Or alternatively the parent body, although still there and larger, is near apihelion, so harder to see, while the subset of the family thus far discovered are mostly at or near perihelion, thus easier to see?

Just out of curiosity, what would be the expected rate of the precession of major axis of an elliptical orbit at this distance?   It is reasonable to assume a family of objects with a common origin 4.5 billion years ago would retain a degree of similarity in the orientation of the axis of their orbits after 4.5 billion years comparable to what we see now?