
Trans-Neptunian object discovered in the outer solar system - radicaldreamer
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2100700-mystery-object-in-weird-orbit-beyond-neptune-cannot-be-explained/
======
cyberferret
That video in the article was the biggest load of ... I can't even find a word
to describe how awfully irrelevant and non informational it was. They
obviously had an intern sitting around and they needed to give them a job
creating some animations for a day...

In any case, if they do find planet 9.5, I hope they call it 'Rupert' as a
tribute to Douglas Adams...

~~~
scarygliders
I just clicked into the comments here to say exactly that. The article is a
load of cobblers.

There's not even an informative diagram to illustrate that planetary body's
oddness.

As for that embedded video - yuck!

It would have been better for the submitter here to have just supplied the
paper's URL, said paper even has informative diagrams :
[http://arxiv.org/abs/1608.01808](http://arxiv.org/abs/1608.01808)

------
dognotdog
Sadly, they have a video embedded in the article that at first glance seems
informational, but it's really just an "action" animation of the solar system.
They could really just have shown the orbit this thing in a diagram or
something.

~~~
pja
New Scientist has gone horribly, horribly downhill over the last few decades.
It’s a pale shadow of its former self :(

~~~
markatkinson
I was on the verge of subscribing to it not too long ago till I did some
research. It seems to have moved into a more sensationalist click-baitesque
sphere.

A shame, but I suppose from their perspective it must have been a case of "if
you can't beat them, join them".

~~~
slyall
I remember them being described as "The National Enquirer of Science" a good
10 years ago.

Just today I was in the Library and looking at "Science" and "Scientific
American" both of which seem to be a lot more "popularist" than I remember
them from when i was a kid, but maybe I just didn't notice then.

~~~
semi-extrinsic
I'm planning on subscribing to one of these, currently favoring Scientific
American after flipping through some copies at the library. What (if anything)
would people recommend instead?

I work as a scientist, so I don't want over-popularised clickbait.

~~~
nkrisc
As a layman I find Scientific American goes into sufficient detail that I
learn new things but is still approachable enough for me to grasp. They also
seem to generally avoid sensationalist writing, providing plenty of caveats
when discussing something theoretical or unproven.

------
theandrewbailey
> This one is 160,000 times fainter than Neptune, which means the icy world
> could be less than 200 kilometres in diameter. It’s currently above the
> plane of the solar system and with every passing day, it’s moving upwards –
> a fact that makes it an oddity.

We know of much bigger objects out that far, and highly inclined orbits
("moving upward") in that region are expected.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_trans-
Neptunian_object...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_trans-
Neptunian_objects)

------
avian
The original article says that estimated probability of observed configuration
of objects appearing by random chance without some unknown, common cause is
3.8 sigma (0.016%).

For comparison (in an apples-to-oranges kind of a way), the recently falsified
diphoton anomaly detected by CERN that made news in 2015 was 2.9 sigma or
about 25 times more likely to appear by chance.

Although this is based on just 6 detected objects, it's a strong indication
that some yet-unknown mechanism is in play.

------
valarauca1
Small icy trans-neptune object in high ecliptic, very eccentric orbit, counter
directional orbit.

So it was captured from inter-galactic space? I mainly like this theory
because it'll force Bayesian Astronomers to re-calculate the density of inter-
galactic planetoids.

I guess we can discuss multiple Neptune/Uranus like ice giants orbiting at the
fringes of the Sun's gravity. But wouldn't that seem to violate Occam's Razor?

~~~
throwanem
Interstellar, perhaps?

~~~
mrec
I'm guessing they were going for "ecliptic" rather than "epileptic", too...

~~~
valarauca1
Yes I was betrayed by spell check :(

------
sheepdestroyer
I have this fear that someday it might be about a teapot... Feeling relived
for now

------
klank
Maybe it's a teapot?

------
f_allwein
“It suggests that there’s more going on in the outer solar system than we’re
fully aware of”

This sounds like a mild understatement...

------
bsenftner
And I was hoping it was the 2016 Asteroid coming to take us out of our
Trump/Brexit misery.

~~~
valarauca1
Don't get your hopes up. Even if it was on a free fall collision course it
would take the better part of a decade for us to be wiped out.

------
mud_dauber
That's no moon...

------
forgottenacc56
Aliens of course. Hum.

~~~
uremog
"Is such a thing even possible?

...

Yes it is."

------
lutusp
> ... cannot be explained

In an allegedly scientific journal? I was aware that New Scientist had
abandoned scientific standards, but this abandons even a patina of scientific
standards.

~~~
LeifCarrotson
I don't think the author and editor of that headline wants the wording to be
taken literally, believing it to be supernatural and outside the realm of
causality.

Instead, what they're trying to drum up attention for in the headline is that
it can be explained, but only by the activity of a previously. unknown force,
astronomical phenomenon, planet, or other new and interesting potential
discovery. Such as aliens.

The headline should read "... is unlikely to be caused by existing models and
behavioral simulations of the solar system", but that's less likely to get
clicks.

That, or "Discovery of A New Retrograde Trans-Neptunian Object: Hint of A
Common Orbital Plane for Low Semi-Major Axis, High Inclination TNOs and
Centaurs", which is the title of the backing paper.

------
joebergeron
"One Crazy Ball In Space That Top Astronomers Don't Want You To Know About!"

I can't be the only one who thought the title reeked of clickbait.

~~~
throwanem
The level of quality for which the New Scientist is justly famed.

------
TeMPOraL
It's a Mass Relay. Here, I explained it.

Who invents headlines like these?

------
devishard
This headline is offensively stupid. Of course it can be explained, we just
haven't explained it yet.

~~~
api
I read it as "cannot _currently_ be explained." I didn't think it was so bad.
The rest of the article was kind of crummy though. Science journalism sucks.

~~~
devishard
That's a very generous interpretation.

