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.
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.
Didn’t realize homie was an antiquated clock. (Assumed the usage of Roman numerals, like in the references being made, in which case I don’t believe the clumsy VIIII only used on old clocks would really be valid.)
The reason clocks use it, is to not make it look visually unbalanced. Most often they write 4 as IIII. I find it infuriating to break such a simple rule though.
Julius Caesar’s memoir of war in Gaul makes use of VIIII, for instance. You’re right that it’s much rarer, but was still used contemporarily and in modern times.
That means “Boy who is not able to satisfactorily explain what a Hrung is, nor why it should choose to collapse on Betelgeuse Seven”. I don’t see how that applies here.
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.
You should forget anything you've read in this thread and play Outer Wilds ASAP. And you should go into it as blind as possible. Trust me; you only get to experience it for the first time once.
Wouldn't we then confuse it with Pluto's moon? Imagine a family of poor future Solar system travellers realizing they got the tickets for the moon, not the planet.
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.
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.
Add comment