posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 09:36 AM
a reply to: ElectricUniverse
The evidence you are presenting seems a bit misinformed. It sounds as if you think it likely that the 1983 study actually found a planet. However,
reading the info presented in the original study and since then, the reality of it is that the evidence is pretty weak for any of the objects they
identified was a Planet.
originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
originally posted by: Phage
And again with this claim of yours that WISE didn't find it... How do you know? Did you personally look through all the WISE data to make this new
Well, maybe somewhere buried in the noise of the data of WISE or IRAS is a faint dot that turns out to be the Planet Nine that has been in the news
lately, but that is a far cry from saying that it was "discovered" just because that dot might exist among the millions of other ots in the WISE and
What I mean is that pictures of the entire sky exist (in different EM wavelengths, and one of those pictures may very well have captured dim dot that
is Planet Nine, but unless someone can point to that dim dot and identify it as a planet, then it hasn't been "discovered".
In fact, when Planet Nine is eventually discovered (and I think there's a good chance it does exist, and will be found), and its orbit plotted,
someone might go back to old IRAS and WISE data, look along that newly-plotted orbit, and find it and say "Oh -- there it was. We already had an
image but didn't know it".
As you mentioned, the same thing had happened with Pluto. People unknowingly photographed Pluto in the early 1900's, decades prior to Tombaugh's
1930discovery, but since they didn't know they photographed it, the official discovery wasn't until Tombaugh in 1930.
edit on 2017/4/2 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)