Posted on 07/12/2016 8:03:24 AM PDT by BenLurkin
Pluto isn't quite as lonely as scientists had thought.
Astronomers have discovered another dwarf planet in the Kuiper Belt, the ring of icy objects beyond Neptune. But this newfound world, dubbed 2015 RR245, is much more distant than Pluto, orbiting the sun once every 700 Earth years, scientists said. (Pluto completes one lap around the sun every 248 Earth years.)
"The icy worlds beyond Neptune trace how the giant planets formed and then moved out from the sun," discovery team member Michele Bannister, of the University of Victoria in British Columbia, said in a statement. "They let us piece together the history of our solar system."
...
The exact size of 2015 RR245 is not yet known, but the researchers think it's about 435 miles (700 kilometers) wide. Pluto is the largest resident of the Kuiper Belt, with a diameter of 1,474 miles (2,371 km).
The research team first spotted 2015 RR245 in February of this year, while poring over images that the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope in Hawaii took in September 2015 as part of the ongoing Outer Solar System Origins Survey (OSSOS).
"There it was on the screen — this dot of light moving so slowly that it had to be at least twice as far as Neptune from the sun," Bannister said.
(Excerpt) Read more at space.com ...
you caught me, there.
>>>> What they are clinging to is the planetary nebula hypothesis <<<<
Repetition is not bringing clarification.
According to bare minimum web search (which translates as wiki entry) appearing in results listings for search terms "planetary nebula hypothesis";
Already superseded -- for some time now, we could safely assume. So just what are you talking about, more exactly? Define it, be specific and precise, rather than tossing out loose phrasing, followed by declaring "death" (it's dead, Jim).
If it would be of any assistance, it appears to me there is frank admission among theorists that there is more yet to be known/solved. From under heading Current issues by which they mean "unsolved problems" I take it, there is such as;
“Already superseded — for some time now, we could safely assume.”
That’s not correct. The hypothesis has been defunct for a while now, but “superceded” implies they have replaced it with something, which they have not. Cosmologists do not currently have any viable model for the development of solar systems. However, you’ll never hear a scientist admit as much when talking to pop sci reporters. Instead they make statements like the man in the article, implying that they actually do have some model that new observations are compatible with, when they do not.
“If it would be of any assistance, it appears to me there is frank admission among theorists that there is more yet to be known/solved. From under heading Current issues by which they mean “unsolved problems” I take it, there is such as; “
That quote you just posted speaking of the problems with “planetessimals” is further demonstration of what I’m talking about. He’s still speaking of the nebular model as if it is still viable, with just a few problems they need to work out. The truth is that the model made predictions and those predictions can now be tested against observed data and we find the predictions failed spectacularly. There aren’t just a few kinks that need to be worked out so the model can be viable, it’s a fundamentally flawed model because it does not represent the underlying processes that governed the formation of stellar systems.
What is really funny to me is that wikipedia cites Hannes Alfven as proposing an explanation for one of the problems with the nebular hypothesis, but neglects to mention that Alfven later came to believe the entire model was unsalvagable and proposed a completely different model of his own.
The all or nothing approach is not working with me. In fact, that has been the basis for what disagreement I've had with your central assertion.
>>>> The truth is that the model made predictions and those predictions can now be tested against observed data and we find the predictions failed spectacularly. <<<<
So says you while entirely ignoring when the "model' as it were does appear to have worked. We are presently standing (or sitting) upon a portion of "it", right about now. That is, unless you have an internet connection that reaches somewhere miles above and beyond the surface of the earth, and are there now, typing, typing, typing...
“The all or nothing approach is not working with me.”
So do you cling to all failed models so long as they got a few things right? By that logic, you should still believe in luminiferous ether, since that model only produced a single failed prediction, and works in other respects. Its track record is far superior to the planetary nebula hypothesis, if you want to start tallying failed predictions.
“So says you while entirely ignoring when the “model’ as it were does appear to have worked. We are presently standing (or sitting) upon a portion of “it”, right about now.”
Are you saying that you think the model is somehow responsible for the planet earth?!? Is your thinking truly so backwards?
Portions of the thinking (which is the model) go a long way towards describing reasonably enough how things possibly came together.
>>>> Is your thinking truly so backwards? <<<<
At least it's not relying upon salvaging an all or nothing type of rhetorical stance.
“Portions of the thinking (which is the model) go a long way towards describing reasonably enough how things possibly came together.”
No, they don’t. You could have reasonably claimed that a couple decades ago, but it doesn’t wash anymore. A model that only (very roughly) works for a single solar system and fails spectacularly when applied to any other solar system is not a proper model, unless you want to posit that the forces which shaped our solar system are completely different than the forces which shaped every other stellar system out there.
Since nobody is claiming that, the only viable conclusion is that the model only worked (roughly) in our solar system because they were forcing the equations to fit the observed phenomenon. That isn’t the proper way to do things, but unfortunately it’s all too common nowadays.
“At least it’s not relying upon salvaging an all or nothing type of rhetorical stance.”
It’s not a rhetorical stance, it’s a scientific stance, and it’s the proper one. You cannot salvage a model whose underlying assumptions have been demonstrated to be wrong. Once you know that is the case, you need to construct a new model, with new assumptions that are more in line with reality. That is how science works, and it’s the reason no scientists complained that they were taking an “all or nothing” approach when they had to abandon the luminiferous ether model after a single failed prediction.
You seem to be saying now, that it works (roughly speaking) for this solar system?
Well, alrighty then.
“You seem to be saying now, that it works (roughly speaking) for this solar system?”
I said roughly, not “roughly speaking”, as in, it works for our solar system only roughly, but still breaks down when you look at the finer details. That is an indictment of the model, not praise for it.
If the reason for the model working to an approximate degree for our solar system was that the fundamentals of the model were correct, then it should work at least roughly for other stellar systems as well, but it does not. Therefore, the fact that it works roughly for our solar system is a sign that the equations have been forced to fit. In other words, it’s a sign that someone has been up to some shenanigans instead of proper science.
Maybe the recently-discovered Etruscan inscription will prove to have the name of a previously-unknown Etruscan deity. That might work (but only if the Etruscans are believed to have immigrated from Asia).
Has a certain - unworldly quality. Especially if you allow yourself to visualize the Disney video... ;-)
Notice that somebody stuck the word “caca” in at the end of that video. Quick, before they scrub it out.
This is a somewhat clever attempt to create a false narrative to replace discussions of Nibiru. Now, if you hear about an incoming brown dwarf star with a huge planet, in a wide elliptical orbit, you will think, “Oh right. I heard about that. It’s way beyond Pluto and harmless.”
See post 33.
NASA is launching a new exploration of Pluto. Sure. That’s what it’s for.
Seriously dude?
Don’t you realize Nibiru was a long period comet which broke up appox. 1800BC? What’s left of it is now the Taurid meteor shower.
Yeah, but there’s still Hercolubus... ;-)
Well then that is not the right name for the winged planet that is out there now, between us and Jupiter.
Watch this video if you have the time. Ignore the presentation, which is a bit amateur. The guy talks about an inadvertent admission NASA just made in discussing the new exploration of Pluto. In explaining why they are going that far out, they say that even though the planet (which they call Eris) is now closer to earth than it will be to them on the voyage, they are going that far out to counteract the enormous light of the Sun, which keeps up from observing Nibiru/Eris properly. In that they are right, but in saying it they have admitted that Eris is NOT way beyond Pluto. In typical government fashion, they have incompetently contradicted themselves and revealed the truth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9FnmAttrns
Right now Nibiru can be see from Australia, mostly at sunrise. Now that it has passed Jupiter, the wings can be seen (iron oxide dust). But soon it will not be visible for a while (can’t remember exactly why this is—Sun will be blocking it in some way), and then will appear in a way in which it can be denied no longer.
Suffer through this video to the end if you possibly can.
That’s another name for it, I think. The multiplicity of names is very confusing.
up = us
Would it be okay with you if this became the current Undead Thread?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.