How is it that we find exoplanets in Kepler-90, light years away, but Planet Nine is still unidentified in out own solar system?
How come? This makes no sense.
>inb4 (((NASA))) Conspiratard Theory
www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/nasa-announcement-today-space-agency-exoplanet-latest-google-artificial-intelligence-a8111256.html
>searching for exoplanets
>still don't have ftl
desu NASA is a joke ChadX is going to btfo them in a couple of years.
could you please try english next time? nobody likes translating from retard
Pluto is the 9th planet.
>Pluto is the 9th planet.
It's a bit like how you can see the Moon which is a few thousand miles away from you but you can't see through walls even though they may be a inches away from you.
Or how you can see a candle more than a mile away from you but you can't see something very small in a dark room.
If you analyzed all existing world telescope data with the latest algorithms, chances are that the planet has already been spotted and astronomers just haven't realized it. But doing that takes time.
I'm not buying it. Our solar system is infinitesimally smaller than the things we're id'ing exponentially further away
shit's dark out there nigga
that makes sense
ty Neil Degrass
dipshit, have you even had basic scientific education?
Regarding exoplanets, we know where to look for them, we look at stars. If the star has a little wobble(due to the planet tugging on it) or if periodically the star's light decreases, we can conclude that there is probably a planet around that star.
For planet 9, we have no idea where to look. Okay, it might be in de ecliptic plane, but for the rest the place where planet 9 "might be" is a huge area in the sky compared to an exoplanet. Added that planet 9 is only visible by reflecting the light from our sun, and taking into account that it is very far away so it's reflected light is very faint, you might see why finding it is so hard.
>. Our solar system is infinitesimally smaller
You know this means it's not smaller at all, right?
We have two methods of finding exoplanets.
1: transit photometry: look at a star. if it becomes slightly darker, then brighter we know a planet is moving in front of it and blocking our view. the darker the star gets, the bigger the planet. also, it's much harder for red giants, as they just naturally become brighter and darker anyways.
2: doppler spectroscopy. look at a star. if it becomes slightly bluer and redder (blue-shifted and red-shifted, in a process known as a the doppler effect) we know there is a planet orbiting the star.
now, all of these methods are possibly because stars produce light, and are easily visible, so long as they are not *too* faint, and Kepler-90, despite being 2500 light years away, is still an entire star, and stars are bright, yo.
Kepler-90 has an apparent magnitude (how bright it is. the lower the apparent magnitude, the brighter it is. the system is also logarithmic, so 8 is a several times more than 9) 14.
That isn't much, but for reference Pluto has an apparent magnitude of 13.65. Easily detectable using telescopes, and using special instruments you could easily measure a brightness drop of only a few tenths of a percent.
This takes us to Planet 9. If it exists, because of how far away it would be, it would be stupidly dark, with an estimated apparent magnitude of about 22.5 If you wanted to see it, you would have to look directly at it, and even then you would have to take a long exposure. But if we don't know where it is, let alone if it even exists, how are we supposed to do that? Our only evidence for planet x is that a few objects outside of orbit of neptune have really weird orbits, and that there's a low chance that forming naturally.
how are you supposed to figure out where a planet is just by the orbits of a few really far away objects? well it's pretty fucking hard. so if we want to figure out where to look for planet x, we're gonna need to get all that out of the way first.
exceedingly smaller means not smaller?
your answer is how you turn people off to science and why NASA and NPR and the EPA always have a hard time keeping their budgets, and why the religious have such a stronghold over the populace and our government.
on the other hand, actually answers the q without being an anger-filled douchemonger.
got it. makes sense. thanks.
Infinitesimally is an antonym of exceedingly m8
I know I went a bit far, but the problem is that OP was just coming off as a bit pretentious, while having no knowledge about exoplanets.
fucking talk to the crowd then, you act like a 12y old
>This makes no sense.
It makes perfect sense. All exoplanets are close to their star. Planet 9, if it exists at all, is very far away from our star.
OP here. how so? clearly i have no knowledge of exoplanets and that's why I asked. Where is the pretense?
you are the reason people hate science. go die somewhere.
>All exoplanets are close to their star
at least the ones we've spotted, obviously
kys
So have we found any promising planets for life yet?
sorry guys, but this is Veeky Forums. If you feel hurt by someone calling you a dipshit maybe visit another website?
There's plenty of planets that could in theory have life but there's no way to find out if they do
it's not being called a dipshit, it's being called a dipshit for asking legitimate questions
i'm no snowflake and i'm not screaming reee.
i'm just saying this guy is a cunt
yeah like the five or so we've spotted using that method. it's retardedly rare to take a picture of a star and see light from the star reflected by the planet.
You asked a legitimate question.
Unfortunately, many Veeky Forums users (varies by board. Veeky Forums seem particularly bad) delight in misleading and deprecating others.
You have every reason to hate the trolls.
But, until they change the moderating system and start banning bastards, nothing much we can do.
Do you think a mosquito hates you? Of course not! Mosquitos have no brains. Neither do some of the idiots.
(I'm going to get slammed by them for writing this. But what do I care about the opinion of a turd?)
>infinitesimally = exceedingly
kek
>How come? This makes no sense.
We discover other planets by things like the transit method, observing not the planet directly (other than in very special cases) but rather detect the effect it has by the dimming of its local star.
Such dimming is not available when we are looking outward for a planet of our own, not orbiting an alien star.
Also for our own system we look along the ecliptic where most stars have their orbital plane. That limits the angular area to search a LOT. The unknown outer planet is expected to be highly inclined to the ecliptic and therefore hard to find.
Great read, thanks for typing this out