Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Discovery of 'Goblin' Solar System Object Bolsters the Case For Planet Nine (gizmodo.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the there's-something-out-there dept.

Astronomers have discovered a dwarf planet, dubbed "the Goblin," in the outer reaches of the Solar System that never gets any closer to the Sun than 6 billion miles. Some experts say its orbital configuration points to the existence of Planet Nine, a hypothetical planet in our Solar System that is estimated to be about 10 times the mass of Earth. Gizmodo reports: The Goblin, or 2015 TG38 as it's more formally called, is what's known as an extreme trans-Neptunian object, or ETNO. As the moniker implies, these objects, of which there are potentially thousands, are located well beyond the orbit of Neptune. The researchers who discovered the object, a team led by Scott Sheppard from the Carnegie Institution for Science and Chadwick Trujillo from Northern Arizona University, estimate that the Goblin is around 185 miles (300 kilometers) in diameter. At this size, it could very well be sphere-like in shape. Its mean distance from the Sun is about 80 astronomical units (AU), where 1 AU is the average distance from the Earth to the Sun. That's 7.45 billion miles, or 12 billion kilometers.

The Goblin's extreme orbital path means it never comes close enough to impose gravitational influence on the Solar System's giant planets, like Neptune or Jupiter. And at the astounding distance of 2,300 AU, it gets slotted into an emerging astronomical category known as Inner Oort Cloud objects (IOCs), of which 2012 VP113 and Sedna are the only other two known members. [...] The discovery of 2015 TG38 is bolstering the case for Planet Nine -- a hypothetical planet, sometimes referred to as Planet X, that's allegedly several times larger than Earth and located hundreds of AU away. As noted in the new study, published today in The Astronomical Journal, the location of Goblin's perihelion is similar to what's observed with Sedna and 2012 VP113, along with other ETNOs. This is a clue to astronomers that something potentially big, i.e. a super-Earth, is pushing these objects into similar types of orbits.

102 comments

  1. post fist! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Ha ha I got it, fp.

    1. Re:post fist! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And now you are like unto God.

  2. if free media use is outlawed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    only outlaws will be running our debt slave hostage game show colony?

  3. Excellent, we've found a prison suitable for Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Make all necessary preparations, the sooner the better traitor.

  4. I am APK and I am GAY !! ... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    yo
    yo
    yo
    :o
    !!

    I'm 31337
    !!
    I'm 31337
    !!
    I'm 31337
    !!
    I'm 31337
    !!
    I'm 31337
    !!

    HOSTS ARE THE SOLUTION TO EVERYTHING
    !!

    I post and pretend to not be me when I get REALLY FUCKING MAD about what you people are saying about me
    !!

    I HATE JEWS
    !!

    I've been posting a long rant about why Jews are evil and repeating it over and over in multiple articles... AND I'M DAMNED PROUD OF IT
    !!

    I am APK and I am GAY
    !!

    The APK has spoken
    !!

    P.S.=> You SOYBOY weasels can go fUcK yourselves in the ass with a spork, rastanbooyez
    !!

    Disagree with me? Want to post fake-creimer spam in reply because you are obsessed with him? Post your real name, address, and phone number, too, you cowardly bastards
    !!
    ... apk

  5. Error in the summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    The hypothetical new planet would be Planet Ten. Pluto is the ninth planet and it's widely accepted that the efforts to say otherwise were a complete farce.

    1. Re:Error in the summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You heard about Pluto? That's messed up, right?" -Burton 'Gus' Guster in Psych (TV Series 2006-2014).

    2. Re:Error in the summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's going to happen to Goblin Junior when his orbit decays in Federal prison?

    3. Re:Error in the summary by Daralantan · · Score: 1

      I was confused why they were saying Planet 9 and also calling it "Planet X." Maybe they were watching Godzilla. At least I feel like I remember something about Planet X being where aliens were from in one/some of those movies.....?

    4. Re:Error in the summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I was confused why they were saying Planet 9 and also calling it "Planet X." Maybe they were watching Godzilla. At least I feel like I remember something about Planet X being where aliens were from in one/some of those movies.....?

      X means 10 in roman numerals and as Pluto was the 9th planet at the time the next planet to be found would be Planet 10. As such Planet X has stuck as a placeholder name because the X also represents it being unknown.

    5. Re:Error in the summary by lgw · · Score: 1

      The hypothetical new planet would be Planet Ten. Pluto is the ninth planet and it's widely accepted that the efforts to say otherwise were a complete farce.

      Yes. Planet 9 is Pluto, and heretics will freeze for eternity in liquid nitrogen seas. (And the effort to say otherwise was a farce: the vote was taken after most scientists had left the conference.)

      This theory has always been "Planet X", with the pun on 10 and unknown. "Planet 9" is a much weaker joke - Planet 9 from Outer Space, maybe?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    6. Re:Error in the summary by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 0

      We will find out pretty quickly what will happen to him.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    7. Re:Error in the summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it Melancholia coming to get us??

  6. You mean planet 10? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Although a planet, by definition of the *word*, is every body orbiting a star!

    So we have four gas giant planets, four inner planets, several outer planets, and a planet cloud/ring between the inners and gaseous and at the outer edge.
    Giving them numbers in the order of their distance from the center, Pluto is the ninth, and like everything else that revolves around thr sun, planet.
    Simple, elegant, and making sense.

    And yes, a satellite or astronaut could also become a planet. Although probably a planet cloud in the long term. ;)

    1. Re:You mean planet 10? by spth · · Score: 4, Informative

      If you count everything as a planet, Pluto is not the ninth, there is a lot more. Wikipedia's list of minor plants has 523584 entries today.

      Pluto isn't even the only thing once considered a planet that got "downgraded" to dwarf-plant. It happened to Ceres in the 1850s before. Ceres was discovered on the 1st of January 1801, far earlier than Pluto. Its orbit between those of Mars and Jupiter and it is far bigger than Goblin.

    2. Re:You mean planet 10? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Although a planet, by definition of the *word*, is every body orbiting a star!

      ... *directly* orbiting a star. Moons aren't planets.

    3. Re:You mean planet 10? by Zocalo · · Score: 2
      By that definition it's probably "Planet 69" or something given how many large Kuiper Belt objects/Plutoids have been discovered, but assuming this object actually exists then referring to it as "Planet 9" is highly likely to be incorrect regardless. Take your pick:
      1. You think Pluto should still be a planet, in which case this would be "Planet X" or "Planet 10".
      2. You think some of the other Plutoids and Kuiper belt objects should qualify as planets as well, in which case it could be anything depending on where you set the bar on mass, volume, etc., but still definitely not "Planet 9".
      3. You agree with the IAU's new definition of planets and exclude Pluto, in which case this is almost certainly likely to be excluded as well, in which case "Planet 9" is still going to be incorrect.

      Assuming it does exist, then based on the IAU's current position on what constitutes a planet and where it's orbiting, the most likely current classification would seem to be either a Kuiper Belt Object or a Plutoid. Alternatively, they could go back to the drawing board again and revamp the classification system to try and make arbitrarily pigeon-holing lumps of rock and gas going around stars into types at least a little less confusing and contentious.

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    4. Re:You mean planet 10? by phayes · · Score: 3, Insightful

      To be able to so wildly disturb the orbits of the multiple ETNO's we have discovered so far, the suspected mystery planet is not going to be a minuscule speck like Pluto but a gas giant along the lines of Uranus or Neptune. Rest assured that should we discover something that big orbiting the Sun, it will be a designated a planet.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    5. Re: You mean planet 10? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only importance of the distinction is to decide which names to teach at school, pretending learning random names is science.

    6. Re:You mean planet 10? by Zocalo · · Score: 2

      You're probably right on that, but there are still a lot of assumptions here - including that the thing even exists and is a single entity; it could turn out to be a collection of gravitationally bound objects in a common orbit similar to Pluto and Charon, for instance. In that case, even if the combined mass is similar to Uranus/Neptune and the individual mass of the larger objects is larger than (say) Earth, would that still a planet, singular, or even an ETNO? What about the individual larger masses - planets or ETNOs?

      Personally, I don't really care whether Pluto is officially a planet or not; because it was when I was first learning about space that's still how I think of it, but on a practical level given the range of other objects we now know are out there it probably does make more sense to have it in some other category. Alternatively, if you're going to officially classify Pluto as a planet, then what about Eris, which has more mass but with a much greater orbital eccentricity? With a little luck, this new object will turn out to be something that doesn't fit the current classification schema, force the IAU back to the drawing board on definitions, and they'll then figure out a way to include Pluto as a planet again (based on mass and orbital inclination/circularity, perhaps?) to stop at least some of the bickering.

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    7. Re:You mean planet 10? by Type44Q · · Score: -1, Troll

      there is a lot more

      Repeat after me:

      there are a lot more.

      It's not hard to avoid sounding like an inbred (and no one's even suggesting that you need to learn the pronunciation of more challenging words, such as "height" or "sherbet").

    8. Re:You mean planet 10? by fisted · · Score: 4, Funny

      Although a planet, by definition of the *word*, is every body orbiting a star!

      By that definition, even your momma is a planet.

      Come to think about it, she too is by some other definitions, but that's beside the point.

      --
      CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
    9. Re: You mean planet 10? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could say that about most of biology

    10. Re:You mean planet 10? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "is a lot" - correct
      "are lots" - correct
      "are a lot" - incorrect.

    11. Re:You mean planet 10? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not hard to avoid sounding like an inbred

      ...and yet somehow you managed to do it, even with so-called superior grammar. I also assume the dangling parenthesis is just dangling for a reason?

    12. Re:You mean planet 10? by phayes · · Score: 1

      Your swarm of gravitationally bound objects is unstable, so no. In addition you'd need to devise a theory for how they came to be gravitationally bound that doesn't destroy current theories on solar system creation and works in simulations. Pluto/Charon (& Earth/Moon) for that matter have been shown to have been created by the collision of similarly sized objects with the two largest successor objects cleaning up and ejecting or absorbing all the rest.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    13. Re:You mean planet 10? by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      "is a lol" - chortle
      "are lols" - chuckle
      "are a lol" - incoherent.

      lol'd that for you!

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    14. Re:You mean planet 10? by mjwx · · Score: 1

      It's not hard to avoid sounding like an inbred (and no one's even suggesting that you need to learn the pronunciation of more challenging words, such as "height" or "sherbet").

      Its not hard to avoid sounding like a mealy mouthed 50 yr old virgin by pointing out things politely and acknowledging that you knew exactly what he meant despite an extremely minor grammatical error.

      Also, it's inbreed, not inbred when using it in the present tense. Inbred is the past tense. Had you not had a go at the OP I would have been happy to ignore this as I knew what you meant.

      They're, there, their, ssss'OK; all Grammar nazi's are hates me. Any other grammatical or spelling errors, intentional or otherwise are there for your annoyance.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    15. Re:You mean planet 10? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This country is full of Nazis! Grammar Nazis that is! Are you sure, Bert? Yepper doodle, I'm sure!

    16. Re:You mean planet 10? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      it could turn out to be a collection of gravitationally bound objects in a common orbit similar to Pluto and Charon, for instance.

      Multiple objects of similar mass in mutual orbit are very rare, Pluto-Charon being considerably the closest of the large bodies. The next closest in the size stakes is 79360 Sila-Nunamat 243 and 230km diameter, around a tenth of the diameter and so a bit less than a thousandth of the mass of Pluto-Charon.

      The Brown-Batygin 2016 proposal has the unknown planet being around 8-10 times the mass of the Earth. That's around 5000 time the Pluto-Charon system's mass, and probably 800 to a thousand times the mass of the Kuiper Belt in total.

      but on a practical level given the range of other objects we now know are out there it probably does make more sense to have it in some other category

      We have - it's the category of "Dwarf Planet", including Pluto-Charon, Ceres, Vesta, Make-make, Haumea and the like. Large enough to have self-rounded, but not large enough to have dynamic dominance of their orbital regions.

      and they'll then figure out a way to include Pluto as a planet again (based on mass

      Pluto-Charon fails. It's a little over 4% of the mass of the next smallest planet, Mercury, which is half the mass of the next smallest planet, Mars.

      and orbital inclination/

      Pluto-Charon fails. 17.2 degrees versus 7 degrees (Mercury, again).

      circularity, perhaps?)

      You mean e, the eccentricity of their orbit? There you've got a slightly better case. {Body - eccentricity} pairs are Pluto - 0.244 ; Mercury - 0.205 ; Mars - 0.094 ; Saturn - 0.057 ; Jupiter - 0.049 ; Uranus - 0.046 ; Earth - 0.017 ; Neptune - 0.011 ; Venus - 0.007. Which marks Mercury as being decidedly unusual among the rest of the planets. Clearly, it has had a bit of a rough time, which is why it still has a percent or so chance of being ejected from the Solar System before the Sun goes red-giant and makes Mercury's future a bit academic.

      to stop at least some of the bickering.

      The bickering is confined to non-astronomers, the New Horizons team (who launched a probe to a planet and flew by a dwarf planet) and a few others. Most simply don't care - they know what the properties of Pluto-Charon are and that's enough.

      Having said that, I'd better amble off to Twitter and see how #TeamIce are doing in this year's #MinCup - a knock-out competition for geologists to name their favourite mineral. Where there has been much argument over whether or not ice is a mineral. (Hint : it is.)

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    17. Re:You mean planet 10? by MBGMorden · · Score: 3, Interesting

      While all true, the distinction is generally only in how to choose to word our definitions.

      I'd say Pluto is closer in "sameness" to Mars than Mars is to Jupiter, yet both Mars and Jupiter have been classified as planets while Pluto has not.

      I don't have strong feelings about it either way, and to me anyone with strong feelings I view with suspicion. Arguing the definition had nothing to do with science and everything to do with language. And in general it seems that the primary reason for declassifying Pluto was that if Pluto was a planet then we'd have "too many" planets.

      I find it comical though that the primary theory for Earth's moon formation was that there was a second "planet" orbiting in the same vicinity as Earth 1.0, the two collided, and the combined mass of the two formed current Earth with the debris scattered into orbit forming the moon. That means that by the current definition, neither of those bodies were planets prior to them colliding, since until that point neither had cleared out their orbit.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    18. Re:You mean planet 10? by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 1

      (based on mass

      Pluto-Charon fails.

      Both are massive enough to have reached hydrostatic equilibrium, which is the threshold any definition that would be adopted requires.

      and orbital inclination

      Pluto-Charon fails.

      Even the problematic IAU definition doesn't use it orbital inclination as a criterion. Nor should they - it has nothing to do with the inherent properties of the body in question.

    19. Re:You mean planet 10? by morethanapapercert · · Score: 1
      (forgoing mod points to reply)

      As far as I know, the definition of a planet is not only being in orbit around a star, but also being large enough to form a sphere and large enough to clear its orbit. A minor planet is one that fails that last criteria. So it's my understanding that Pluto still falls under the category of planets, but is properly further defined as a minor planet.

      I've seen some layman debate about whether a given body's ability to hold an atmosphere is relevant, but I don't think it is. Whether a body has an atmosphere isn't just a product of a body's size, but also its composition and distance from the star it orbits. The Goblin planet mentioned in the article likely doesn't have any atmosphere at all because it would be too cold for even gaseous hydrogen. I suspect that the unknown planet X may be equally cold.

      --
      I need a wheelchair van for my son. Help me get the word out. https://www.gofundme.com/wheelchair-van-for-jj
    20. Re:You mean planet 10? by spth · · Score: 1

      Well, learning languages has always been hard for me. At school, for a while English always was my worst grade. That only changed when I had to take a second foreign language.

      My grades finally improved when I was reading Unix Network Programming, Volume 2, Interprocess communications. It seems I learned English from that book. I still couldn't really speak it, but reading and writing finally was okayish.

      Even today, I write a mixture of British and American English, there is a heavy German accent in my pronunciation and I have trouble understanding some spoken English (in particular the Dublin and Yorkshire accents).

      The only languages I really feel comfortable with are German and C. But I noticed that my German no longer is a good as it once was. I guess I should go back to reading German books more often.

      If I'd put in some effort, I should be able to get my French, Scheme and Verilog to a reasonable level. But I don't think I could progress much further than that.

    21. Re:You mean planet 10? by phayes · · Score: 1

      Both are massive enough to have reached hydrostatic equilibrium, which is the threshold any definition that would be adopted requires.

      Reread RockDoctor's post. You snipped the following: "but not large enough to have dynamic dominance of their orbital regions."
      Pluto fails.
       

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    22. Re:You mean planet 10? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Try asian languages.
      Japanese is super easy.
      Thai is reasonable easy, too. After you are beyond the hurdle of the script.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    23. Re:You mean planet 10? by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 1

      It wasn't part of what I was responding to, nor is it particularly germane given that the post RockDoctor was responding to was predicated on IAU revisiting its definitions, thus throwing out the "has cleared its orbit" criterion. Which they should, given that that criterion has little to do with the intrinsic characteristics of the body itself and a lot to do with where it is. For example, Earth would not clear its orbit in the same orbit as Pluto. Go far enough out, and Neptune wouldn't clear its orbit. Further still, Jupiter wouldn't clear its orbit. And given what we know about the mass and distance of this potential Planet X, it's likely it won't clear its orbit.

    24. Re:You mean planet 10? by phayes · · Score: 1

      Re: Planet X not clearing it's orbit disqualifying it:

      Given that Brown-Batygin 2016 proposed planet is posited precisely because it has perturbed the orbits of ETNO's and Goblin is another addition to the list it looks like planet X _is_ clearing it's orbit, even if it may not have finished doing so. The IAU definition has some margin in it: Nobody is claiming that Earth should lose it's planetary status even though Rugyu & Earth cross orbits.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
  7. Goblin? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    My very erratic mother just served us goatse?

    Works for me.

    1. Re:Goblin? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Worked for me too, last night.

  8. Goblin? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    APK be gobblin' this nigga's cum.

    Jizzed up hosts file headed your way! APK jizz gobbler.

  9. 80 or 2300? by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

    Its mean distance from the Sun is about 80 astronomical units (AU)

    and

    at the astounding distance of 2,300 AU

    ?

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    1. Re: 80 or 2300? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Both. Gets as close as 80 and as far as 2300. The orbit isn't exactly a circle.

    2. Re: 80 or 2300? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Both. Gets as close as 80 and as far as 2300. The orbit isn't exactly a circle

      80 AU's is mentioned as the mean distance. NOT the minimum distance. If 80 AU's is the mean distance, and 2300 AU were aphelion (which is NOT what they said), the Goblin would have to have an orbit that pretty much brushed the Sun, took a few tens of thousands of loops around the Sun down near Mercury, followed by a close pass of Mercury that tossed it out toward Jupiter, then a close pass of Jupiter tossed it into the outer system to reach that 2300 AU level, then fall back to the Sun, close pass by Jupiter, another close pass by Mercury to keep it low for a few thousand years, lather, rinse, repeat.

      Now, it's quite possible that they meant to write (and didn't, because they were idiots who didn't know what the words meant) that perihelion was 80 AU, and aphelion was 2300 AU.

      Or someone cut & pasted from two articles to make this article. And one of the articles referred to one object, but the other referred to another....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    3. Re: 80 or 2300? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We could read the article they quoted...Oh wait, they didn't actually link to it.

    4. Re: 80 or 2300? by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      Now, it's quite possible that they meant to write (and didn't, because they were idiots who didn't know what the words meant) that perihelion was 80 AU, and aphelion was 2300 AU

      I wonder if this object is big enough to be the object that influences the variations in the earth precession?

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    5. Re: 80 or 2300? by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      80 to 2300? Are we sure we can call this a Dwarf Planet and not just a Huge Comet? I'm sure there is a typo in there somewhere. Or this planet got knocked out of orbit. I can't imagine it lasting from the creation of the solar system with such an eccentric orbit.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    6. Re: 80 or 2300? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it isn't.
      Besides, it's too far away anyway.

        - Peder

    7. Re: 80 or 2300? by Woeful+Countenance · · Score: 1
      Gizmodo: "... the Goblin is around 185 miles (300 kilometers) in diameter. ... Its mean distance from the Sun is about 80 astronomical units .... But it actually gets even farther away than that .... it never gets any closer than about 65 AU—its perihelion point. ... but its aphelion, the point at which it’s the farthest from the Sun, is a whopping 2,300 AU."

      Obviously it isn't possible for all three of those numbers to be correct. Gizmodo got it wrong. From the Carnegie press release: "... 2015 TG387 was discovered about 80 astronomical units (AU) from the Sun ...." Current distance, not mean distance.

      Apparently some reporter can't even copy and paste right.

      Oh, and just a note to every person who uses English, including some who commented on this story: "then" != "than".

  10. APK and c6gunner are GAY !! ... ap-gay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Thanks to c6gunner, who is also gay.

  11. Excuse ME by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    It would be PLANET EIGHT, because these fancy people with highfalutin degrees decided PLUTO was NOT a planet. And that's that.

  12. Yes. And? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I assumed Pluto was the closest one after Neptune. And I talked about belts.

    Then it's planet 94732 or whatever.

    Or does that overwhelm your mind or comfort zone already? ;)

  13. *orbiting a star* implies that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Otherwise it is orbiting something else.

    Go count beans in your aspergers therapy group.

  14. Sorry for the Pedantry by ytene · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Fascinating bit of research; kudos to the authors.

    Just one bit of pedantry (sorry!). When the OP writes, "This is a clue to astronomers that something potentially big, i.e. a super-Earth, is pushing these objects into similar types of orbits.", the use of the term "super-Earth" prompted a non-technical friend of mine [who was reading the article over my shoulder] to ask, "So there's, like, an amazing Earth, way out in space, right on the edge of our solar system?"

    Obviously I explained that in this context the phrase simply meant, "physically bigger than the Earth in size and/or mass" and that in reality, any planet orbiting beyond Pluto would be a barren world of rock and/or ice, to which the response was, "Well, why doesn't the article say that, then?"

    Given the way that lots of content covered by slashdot gets picked up by the mainstream media, maybe we should try and avoid terms liable to confuse or be misunderstood by less technical readership?

    1. Re:Sorry for the Pedantry by Type44Q · · Score: 0, Troll

      Well, why doesn't the article say that, then?

      These days "journalism" is more akin to marketing - complete with all the lying.

    2. Re:Sorry for the Pedantry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Super earth means rocky planet, not gas giant.

    3. Re:Sorry for the Pedantry by Gavagai80 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There is actually a possibility of life in a planet X (or even in Pluto), if it has an internal ocean heated by radioactive decay. So it might be a bit of a paradise after all, on the inside, for all we know.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    4. Re:Sorry for the Pedantry by sheramil · · Score: 0

      These days? Only these days?

    5. Re:Sorry for the Pedantry by Daralantan · · Score: 1
      Super Earth wears a red cape. It's faster than a speeding bullet and able to leap buildings in a single bound!

      It also shows up around super phone booths.

    6. Re:Sorry for the Pedantry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's true, and I was forgetting about nuclear decay. It would still retain heat dating back to its formation.

    7. Re:Sorry for the Pedantry by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      I dare you to tell Kal-El that to his face!

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    8. Re:Sorry for the Pedantry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did a rockstar eat your hamster?

    9. Re:Sorry for the Pedantry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually there is an amazing Earth, way out in space, right on the edge of our solar system. Pity you haven't taken the time to visit. I went last weekend, it was GREAT. The gravity is a bummer, though. Even with the powered armor, it's still hard on your endoskeleton.

      Rock? Ice? What are you going on about?

    10. Re:Sorry for the Pedantry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. ONLY these days. No other, just . . . these. EXACTLY these. No exceptions.

    11. Re:Sorry for the Pedantry by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      he use of the term "super-Earth" prompted a non-technical friend of mine [who was reading the article over my shoulder] to ask, "So there's, like, an amazing Earth, way out in space, right on the edge of our solar system?"

      Should have told him it is the home of all the Super people, like Super Man and really fantastically dressed.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    12. Re:Sorry for the Pedantry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you cater to a different audience, your audience changes.

    13. Re:Sorry for the Pedantry by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Only these days?

      Technically, ever since the TLA's took over the media under COINTELPRO's Operation Mockingbird... but it's gotten a lot worse, and a lot more obvious.

    14. Re:Sorry for the Pedantry by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      Part of the problem is the science of astronomy itself, and their inability to come up with precise definitions that keep up with their scientific revelations.

      For example, a quick googling for 'scientific definition of a star' gives me:
      Star: A huge ball of gas held together by gravity. The central core of a star is extremely hot and produces energy. Some of this energy is released as visible light, which makes the star glow.

      By that definition, Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune are all technically stars - they are massive collections of gas that emit more energy than they receive. Yet, I don't think anyone would say "oh, yeah, our solar system is a quaternery system with 4 stars".

      Or, for example, the IAU is still undergoing paroxysms about defining what a planet is.

      I'd agree with you, the use of the term 'super earth' is strikingly badly chosen and misleading because the term 'earth' in there implies habitability...a confusion that IMO astronomers have encouraged for their own publicity purposes when discovering terrestrial exoplanets.
      "Terrestrial exoplanet" might be accurate, "Super Earth" gets magazine covers and funding.

      In this case, "large terrestrial planetoid" would probably have been better.

      --
      -Styopa
    15. Re:Sorry for the Pedantry by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 0

      Yeah yeah, mass and ice and stuff... What I want to know is, if we have a Super Earth just sitting out there, then why the heck is Elon screwing around with Mars instead of getting us to the nice big Super Earth? Think of the beaches that place must have!

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    16. Re:Sorry for the Pedantry by JohnStock · · Score: 1

      You want to avoid technical terms on a technical website? That's what Google Search for.

    17. Re: Sorry for the Pedantry by jd · · Score: 1

      Super Earth includes all rocky planets that should have become gas giants but aren't. (About 1.2 Earth masses.) I'm not completely sure how much smaller than that it goes, but Earth doesn't become a Super Earth every time a meteor storm adds mass, so there is a range of masses that constitute Earth mass.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    18. Re:Sorry for the Pedantry by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune don't have a hot core, they don't produce energy and they don't emit visible light.
      So they contradict your definition. And are obviously not stars. To be a star Jupiter would need to be 10 times as heavy.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  15. Also: 10 times or 300 km? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At least in this case you can find out how it was meant after an unacceptable amount of backtracking anf detective work, to untangle this turd of a fucking summary.

  16. Don't think so by evanh · · Score: 0

    When they stated 80 AU they also stated 300 km diameter of the body. When they stated 2300 AU they also stated "several times larger than Earth". Earth diameter is about 12740 km.

    1. Re:Don't think so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      You've misread. Goblin's not the one that's several times larger than Earth -- Goblin is the 300km one. The fact that Goblin's orbit is where it is, is more evidence pointing to an as-yet unobserved hypothetical planet further out, Planet Nine, that is several times larger than Earth.

    2. Re:Don't think so by evanh · · Score: 1

      Oops, thanks. That all makes sense now ... Heh, and reading the full article, I see the opening paragraph makes the two body point very clear at the outset. :D

  17. Pluto invites you to SUCK ITS COCK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Eat COCK Black Science Man and your pro-war bullshit. FUCK BSM and all Pluto deniers!

  18. You're really expecting BeauHD to actually EDIT? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Are you really expecting BeauHD to EDIT?!?!!

    Gotta wonder what planet you're on. ;-)

    Just be glad TFS wasn't turned into some "Russia! Russia! Russia!" crap.

  19. Close examination with a powerful telescope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    showed a large sign that reads "we sent you creimer, you can keep him!"

    Guess even his home planet doesn't want him back!

    1. Re:Close examination with a powerful telescope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How come everyone misspells "creamer" at this site? I don't get it.

  20. Jfrost pisT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    start 4 Holy war

  21. PLANET X!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Screw you damned kids, Pluto is a planet because they found it before all your fancy bullshit, so leave it the fuck alone. If this newly discovered planetary body is deemed a planet, it's Planet, motherfucking, X. Samuel L. Jackson makes the announcement while holding Neil deGrasse Tyson up by his underwear...super atomic wedgie style. And when our dips hit great great grandkids come along and fuck everything up, hopefully there's some old curmudgeon like myself around to remind you assholes that planet will be XI. Now get off my damned lawn!!!!

  22. Dwarf or Moon? by ripvlan · · Score: 1

    While I'm aware research is still in its early phase --- are they suggesting that, should Planet X exist, that Goblin is actually a Moon?

    I heard Goblin described as "at the very small end of a dwarf-planet." Are they suggesting it is a planet that was knocked out of orbit by X? Or is it technically orbiting X making it a moon?

    Or do we need a different definition --- rocks that float in space?!

    OOhhh -- I see the movie now. Super Earth X. Magical planet of mysterious inhabitants.
    The sequel will be called "Return to Xs" :-P

    1. Re: Dwarf or Moon? by jd · · Score: 1

      No, Goblin would not orbit the new planet, it orbits the sun, therefore it is not a moon. That it is gravitationally affected is irrelevant.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  23. Such a moron! by zidium · · Score: 1

    Here you go:

    1. Mercury
    2. Venus
    3. Earth
    4. Mars
    5. Jupiter
    6. Saturn
    7. Uranus
    8. Neptune
    9. PLUTO
    10. Planet X (X as is in the Roman numeral for 10).

    --
    Slashdot Valentines Beta Massacre: iT WORKED! The boycotts killed Beta!!
  24. Goblin is not a planet by rossdee · · Score: 2

    With a perihelion of 80, and an aphelion of 2300, Goblin is not a planet, its a comet.

    1. Re: Goblin is not a planet by jd · · Score: 1

      Depends. If you go by structure and intrinsics, it might well be a planet. If you go by extrinsics, it's a dwarf planet. The definition of a comet has nothing to do with the shape of the orbit.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  25. From Outer Space by kbg · · Score: 1

    So you could say this is "Planet 9 from Outer Space"?

    *rimshot* Thank you! I'll be here all week -- don't forget to tip your waitress!!

  26. Microsoft employee here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Shouldn't this be called Planet 10?

  27. So I'm confused by andyring · · Score: 1

    Is it 80 AU away or 2,300 AU away?

    1. Re:So I'm confused by Scarred+Intellect · · Score: 1

      Is it 80 AU away or 2,300 AU away?

      Yes.

    2. Re: So I'm confused by jd · · Score: 1

      It has a very elongated orbit. At any given point in time, it is between those two distances. Even the Earth doesn't have a circular orbit, indeed nothing does.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  28. Let's make things confusing by GuB-42 · · Score: 2

    I suggest that we call planet 9 "Pluto". There is another object called "Pluto" but since it isn't a planet, it should be no problem, right?

    1. Re:Let's make things confusing by Scarred+Intellect · · Score: 1

      I suggest that we call planet 9 "Pluto". There is another object called "Pluto" but since it isn't a planet, it should be no problem, right?

      Well, we'll have Pluto, and Planet Pluto, then. Or something.

      Much like we have Washington State and Washington, D.C. Depending on where you're at (and sometimes the context of the conversation overrides this), Washington refers to either the State or D.C.

      Since we've already got duplicate naming conventions totally figured out, and with all ambiguity removed, calling it Pluto shouldn't be a problem for anybody. You've got my vote!

    2. Re: Let's make things confusing by jd · · Score: 1

      It's a planet. Some fools designate it a dwarf planet, but a dwarf planet is still a planet.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    3. Re:Let's make things confusing by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 1

      That's Washington state. Not to be confused with Washington State in Pullman.

    4. Re:Let's make things confusing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don’t forget Washington, VA, often called “little Washington”. No confusion whatsoever.

      Oh and Springfield isn’t far away.

  29. How about we call it dwarf 5? by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    Pluto is the ninth, and like everything else that revolves around thr sun, planet.

    How about we say Pluto is the largest dwarf planet and fifth dwarf planet from the Sun ?

    ordered by distance from Sun:
    1. Ceres (945 km diameter, 2.9773 AU aphelion)
    2. 120347 Salacia (approximately 850 km diameter, 46.548 AU aphelion)
    3. 2002 MS4 (726 km diameter, 47.740 AU aphelion)
    4. 90482 Orcus (920 km diameter, 48.069 AU aphelion)
    5. Pluto (2380 km diameter, 49 AU aphelion)
    6. Haumea (816 km diameter, 51.483 AU aphelion)
    7. Makemake (715 km diameter, 52.840 AU aphelion)
    8. Eris (1160 km diameter, 97.651 AU aphelion)
    9. 2007 OR10 (1253 km diameter, 101.02 AU aphelion)
    10. 90377 Sedna (approximately 1000 km diameter, 936 AU aphelion)

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  30. Planet X or Planet Ten? by TangoCharlie · · Score: 1

    If they made Pluto a planet again (planet #9), then Planet X would be Planet Ten. Or should that be iPlanet X?

    --
    return 0; }
  31. Planet name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I suggest we refer to Planet 9 by it's rightful name planet Nibiru.

    After that we can stop all the foolish psuedoscience and get to the real task of understanding the role that the prophecy plays in Clinton's statement of Kavanaugh being banned on Alex Jones website.

  32. Laugh-a while you can, monkey-boy by Clouseau2 · · Score: 1

    Lord John Whorfin: Where are we going? The Red Lectroids: Planet Ten! Lord John Whorfin: When? The Red Lectroids: Real soon!

  33. Thank god it's not closer! by Askmum · · Score: 1

    it never comes close enough to impose gravitational influence on the Solar System's giant planets,

    I would think the massive diameter of 300 km is enough to make sure of that. What kind of gravitational influence would an object like that have, even if it were to come close?