Mike Brown3hMike Brown @plutokiller@Rickie99_ I predict within 3 years it'll be found.
Mike Brown sticks his neck out as regards planet nine.QuoteMike Brown3hMike Brown @plutokiller@Rickie99_ I predict within 3 years it'll be found.https://mobile.twitter.com/plutokillerWhat say people on this prediction?
Quote from: Star One on 08/26/2016 08:07 pmMike Brown sticks his neck out as regards planet nine.QuoteMike Brown3hMike Brown @plutokiller@Rickie99_ I predict within 3 years it'll be found.https://mobile.twitter.com/plutokillerWhat say people on this prediction?It will either be right or wrong! Mike probably has a pretty good idea of what search capacity is going to be available and therefore how long a search capable of detecting P9 is going to take to cover the entire presumed area. And he may as well be optimistic on the likelihood of success!
I was just surprised to see him come out in public with such a specific figure. Since reading the recent book on the vexed history of the planet that never was Vulcan, I've wondered if planet nine could be yet another example of this, though our mathematical modeling has improved greatly and we now know about relativity I can't help wondering.
Other areas are excluded by previous searches.
I know that. But in those areas, and in the current one, they are looking for an object that they have pretty much defined. My point is that if P9 ends up not conforming to that definition, they may never find it at all, having already missed it in those other areas, as well as the current - because - they didn't recognize it.
Is it possible that Brown's team has already found a candidate object and are making follow-up observations?
Hm, Mike Brown just told another user on twitter that P9 is "definetly real". That could - but perhaps shouldn't - be read as them having found a promising candidate. Or it could just be a figure of speech.
Quote from: Bynaus on 08/28/2016 10:30 amHm, Mike Brown just told another user on twitter that P9 is "definetly real". That could - but perhaps shouldn't - be read as them having found a promising candidate. Or it could just be a figure of speech.I would caution that you need to look at the context of the enquiry there, but who knows.If he did find a strong candidate how many independent observing teams would have to verify it for him to announce its discovery, what I mean is there an agreed number of independent observations that you need for this?
Quote from: Star One on 08/28/2016 11:51 amQuote from: Bynaus on 08/28/2016 10:30 amHm, Mike Brown just told another user on twitter that P9 is "definetly real". That could - but perhaps shouldn't - be read as them having found a promising candidate. Or it could just be a figure of speech.I would caution that you need to look at the context of the enquiry there, but who knows.If he did find a strong candidate how many independent observing teams would have to verify it for him to announce its discovery, what I mean is there an agreed number of independent observations that you need for this?Only one team is needed; Brown's bona fides are well-established. What's needed are several observations over a long enough arc of time to establish the orbital parameters. Like I said above, my guess is data spanning a few years. You can get distances with short arcs (few days) but Brown's looking for not just the semimajor axis, but the orientation of the orbit. In essence, you have to wait until the curvature of the orbit is measured well enough that you can accurately fit an ellipse to it.
Quote from: jgoldader on 08/28/2016 01:39 pmQuote from: Star One on 08/28/2016 11:51 amIf he did find a strong candidate how many independent observing teams would have to verify it for him to announce its discovery, what I mean is there an agreed number of independent observations that you need for this?Only one team is needed; Brown's bona fides are well-established. What's needed are several observations over a long enough arc of time to establish the orbital parameters. Like I said above, my guess is data spanning a few years. You can get distances with short arcs (few days) but Brown's looking for not just the semimajor axis, but the orientation of the orbit. In essence, you have to wait until the curvature of the orbit is measured well enough that you can accurately fit an ellipse to it.Thank you. So he could have already found it but would need to observe it for a long space of time to confirm it. So much for my desire for a quick answer on this.
Quote from: Star One on 08/28/2016 11:51 amIf he did find a strong candidate how many independent observing teams would have to verify it for him to announce its discovery, what I mean is there an agreed number of independent observations that you need for this?Only one team is needed; Brown's bona fides are well-established. What's needed are several observations over a long enough arc of time to establish the orbital parameters. Like I said above, my guess is data spanning a few years. You can get distances with short arcs (few days) but Brown's looking for not just the semimajor axis, but the orientation of the orbit. In essence, you have to wait until the curvature of the orbit is measured well enough that you can accurately fit an ellipse to it.
If he did find a strong candidate how many independent observing teams would have to verify it for him to announce its discovery, what I mean is there an agreed number of independent observations that you need for this?
Hunt for ninth planet reveals new extremely distant Solar System objects...2013 FT28 shows similar clustering in some of these parameters (its semi-major axis, eccentricity, inclination, and argument of perihelion angle, for angle enthusiasts out there) but one of these parameters, an angle called the longitude of perihelion, is different from that of the other extreme objects, which makes that particular clustering trend less strong...