

New Planet Found in Our Solar System?  - japaget
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/05/120511-new-planet-solar-system-kuiper-belt-space-science/

======
chubbard
I forgive them. The title is misleading, but I imagine the alternative:

"Kuiper Belt Orbits Indicate A New Planet" Nah.

"Mystery Planet Influences Kuiper Orbits" Nah.

"Data suggests Remote New Planet" Nah.

Ah screw it.

"New Planet Found in Our Solar System", oh add ?, and Print it!

------
Rudism
These sensationalist headlines on science stories really get me down. Cue the
Nibiru cult parades in the streets any moment now. It kind of reminds me of
the recent HuffPo article on intelligent alien dinosaurs.

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/12/advanced-
dinosaurs-...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/12/advanced-dinosaurs-
alien-chemistry_n_1421414.html)

~~~
m_myers
Betteridge's Law of Headlines applies here.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridges_Law_of_Headlines>

------
jessriedel
Unlike Rudiam, I thought the title was basically appropriate. Through the
extensive quotes at the end of the article (clearly, the author did more
interviews than he could have gotten away with), the author made it clear that
these findings were the result of one scientists, and that his peers were
interested, still not convinced, and awaiting more data. Pretty good for pop
sci!

~~~
Rudism
I won't argue that the article wasn't comparitively reasonable (at least when
stacked against the normal fare of science journalism), It just makes me sad
when publications (perhaps rightfully so) assume that they need to craft their
headlines and spin articles around sensationalistic conjecture or speculation
in order for the public to be interested. I would have preferred an article in
the form of "these interesting/anomalous things were noticed, here are some
possible explanations from various members of the astronomical community" as
opposed to "there may be a new planet! here's the new anomalous things that
may support it, oh by the way most people in the astronomical community are
skeptical about the new planet thing until we get more data."

------
JacobAldridge
Wasn't Pluto discovered based on Percival Lowell's calculations that there
need to be a Planet X to account for gravitational anomalies in Neptune's
orbit?

Do your own fact checking, but iirc Pluto was a lucky find - it was way too
small to be the theoretical 'Planet X', but just happened to be in the right
area when Clyde Tombaugh was looking there based on Lowell's calculations?

I guess my point is: this isn't a new theory, but it certainly has a lot more
data than Lowell had in the '20s. And it would be fascinating if a ninth
planet were discovered, based on the same process that led us (flukily) to
Pluto.

------
jimmytucson
This is like twisting the knife after we stabbed it in Pluto's back, if you
ask me.

~~~
sp332
Pluto was reclassified as a Kuiper belt object because there are lots of those
and it fit that category better than it fit in the category of planets.

~~~
lmm
Put Pluto, Vesta, Mercury and Mars side by side. They look pretty similar; a
lot more similar than Mars and Mercury do to Jupiter and Saturn.

~~~
lonnyk
It's not about looks. There are 3 criteria to being classified as a planet[1]:

* Orbits the sun

* Massive enough for its gravity to make it all the way around

* 'Cleared its neighborhood' of smaller objects arounds its orbit

[1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_planet>

------
J3L2404
Wouldn't it have to clear it's orbit to be considered a planet?

