• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Planet 9...may soon be found

Glitch said:
That was the purpose behind the theory for primordial black holes. A failed attempt to explain Dark Matter. Primordial black holes are about as likely as Warp drive. Both are theoretically possible, but neither are probable. You are trying to expand on a theory without understanding the purpose for the theory. There is absolutely no consensus by anyone credible that primordial black holes exist today.
Click to expand...

I don't know what to tell you, Glitch.... the scientific consensus is that primordial black holes exist - the only real debate is to the extent they can account for dark matter. But, as I alluded to before, for the purposes of this debate, dark matter is irrelevant.
 
67007266.jpg
 
beancounter said:
Or, the missing mass could just be dark matter.
Click to expand...

Doesn't mean it is not still missing. Literally the only reason its called "dark" is because we don't know wtf it is beyond it is very weak and thus doesn't interact with baryonic matter.
 
Abbazorkzog said:
I just hope its not a black hole. If its a black hole our days as a species are numbered.
Click to expand...

Why? Black holes aren't dangerous as long as we're beyond their gravitational influence.

I wonder what another planet might be named?
 
Dayton3 said:
Black holes aren't dangerous as long as we're beyond their gravitational influence.
Click to expand...
Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
You are aware that black holes do not only warp space but time as well, yes?
It would also fundamentally change everything we thought we knew about the observable universe, due to the massive gravitational lensing that would inevitably be part of the package deal, affecting how and where we have been observing other objects in space, including the CMB and other anomalies we base around how we understand the size, age, etc. of the universe itself. Affecting untold metric ****tons of science put together over the course of decades if not centuries.
 
Last edited:
Abbazorkzog said:
Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
You are aware that black holes do not only warp space but time as well, yes?
Click to expand...

Not when you are far enough away from them.

A small black hole could be very near the Earth and it wouldn't make any difference here.
 
Dayton3 said:
Not when you are far enough away from them.

A small black hole could be very near the Earth and it wouldn't make any difference here.
Click to expand...

You should really give it some time before you reply to a thread because someone could be unfinished with the post you are responding to, as is the case here. Common courtesy.

And it also makes you look stupid when the edited content of the post immediately discredits the reply to the draft indicative therein for any and all who may visit the thread in the future to see clear as a cloudless midsummer day, as is also the case here. :thumbs: Congratz on your epic failure.
 
Last edited:
Abbazorkzog said:
Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
You are aware that black holes do not only warp space but time as well, yes?
It would also fundamentally change everything we thought we knew about the observable universe, due to the massive gravitational lensing that would inevitably be part of the package deal, affecting how and where we have been observing other objects in space, including the CMB and other anomalies we base around how we understand the size, age, etc. of the universe itself. Affecting untold metric ****tons of science put together over the course of decades if not centuries.
Click to expand...

How evident would the gravitation lensing be, though, if we're only talking about something the size of a shotput that's a few hundred AU out? (I misspoke earlier when I figured it'd be the size of a basketball - that'd be about 13 M🜨 - our target range is 5-10 M🜨).
 
Glitch said:
Why would they have formed around black holes with masses less than 3[SUB]☉[/SUB], when they had all those first generation stars that would have been massive and very short-lived? That makes no sense.

Do try to keep up. I said primordial black holes were theoretically possible, but only within the very first second after the Big Bang. I never said that they were non-existent. I said they do not exist now, ~13.78 billion years after the Big Bang, and you will find no one credible who will refute that.
Click to expand...

Layman question, is the by product of sublimation/evaporation of these "primodial" black holes, heat? If so wouldn't it show up in CMB map?
 
Jonsa said:
Layman question, is the by product of sublimation/evaporation of these "primodial" black holes, heat? If so wouldn't it show up in CMB map?
Click to expand...

Yes, but they really don't sublimate or evaporate. It is radioactive decay, but there is still heat generated. Not very much, because it takes a very long time for a black hole to completely decay. However, mass does get converted to energy with radioactive decay and that creates some heat.

The reason they cannot be detected directly is because nothing in the electromagnetic spectrum escapes a black hole. Not even infrared radiation. We have to infer their presence due to their gravitational influence on other objects.
 
Glitch said:
Yes, but they really don't sublimate or evaporate. It is radioactive decay, but there is still heat generated. Not very much, because it takes a very long time for a black hole to completely decay. However, mass does get converted to energy with radioactive decay and that creates some heat.

The reason they cannot be detected directly is because nothing in the electromagnetic spectrum escapes a black hole. Not even infrared radiation. We have to infer their presence due to their gravitational influence on other objects.
Click to expand...

In the same way we infer the existence of a "Planet 9" object?
 
Cordelier said:
In the same way we infer the existence of a "Planet 9" object?
Click to expand...

More like the way we discovered Neptune - by mistake. They used the obsolete Titius–Bode law and erroneous mass for Uranus to calculate Neptune's position. Even then they couldn't decide on its orbit. Adams calculated an orbital period of 227 years for Neptune. Le Verrier calculated Neptune's orbit to be 218 years using Kepler's Third Law. The actual orbit of Neptune is 165 years. Which means that Neptune has completed just one orbit in 2011 since its discovery in 1846.

It will be determined that "Planet 9" is nothing more than a mathematical error and never existed.
 
Abbazorkzog said:
Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
You are aware that black holes do not only warp space but time as well, yes?
It would also fundamentally change everything we thought we knew about the observable universe, due to the massive gravitational lensing that would inevitably be part of the package deal, affecting how and where we have been observing other objects in space, including the CMB and other anomalies we base around how we understand the size, age, etc. of the universe itself. Affecting untold metric ****tons of science put together over the course of decades if not centuries.
Click to expand...

None of this is true at all, because you're fundamentally missing the fact that if Planet 9 were a black hole it would be one of very, very low mass.

It would have to be less mass than the Sun, which means its gravitational effects would be weaker than the Sun. Its time distortion would affect us less than the Sun, unless you got right up close to it.
 
Abbazorkzog said:
You should really give it some time before you reply to a thread because someone could be unfinished with the post you are responding to, as is the case here. Common courtesy.

And it also makes you look stupid when the edited content of the post immediately discredits the reply to the draft indicative therein for any and all who may visit the thread in the future to see clear as a cloudless midsummer day, as is also the case here. :thumbs: Congratz on your epic failure.
Click to expand...

Are you familiar with the Dunning-Kruger effect?

Your failure is becoming all the more sad with your repeated insistence that you know more than everyone else.
 
Deuce said:
Are you familiar with the Dunning-Kruger effect?

Your failure is becoming all the more sad with your repeated insistence that you know more than everyone else.
Click to expand...

I guess its only fitting you can share my ignore list with literal ****ing Nazi Dayton3. At least I've exposed the bipartisan consensus on attempting to silence independent and open-minded scientific individuals to satiate their frothing at the mouth anti-scientific political extremism. Have a good one! :2wave:
 
Abbazorkzog said:
I guess its only fitting you can share my ignore list with literal ****ing Nazi Dayton3. At least I've exposed the bipartisan consensus on attempting to silence independent and open-minded scientific individuals to satiate their frothing at the mouth anti-scientific political extremism. Have a good one! :2wave:
Click to expand...

I provided rebuttal to what you posted. You ignored the science in my post. To distort time more than the sun already does (on earth) the black hole would necessarily have to exert more gravitational pull on the earth than the sun does. Do you deny this scientific fact?

And you have the nerve to call me "anti-science."
 
Last edited:
beancounter said:
Or, the missing mass could just be dark matter.
Click to expand...

There is no missing mass. The reason some people think Planet 9 exists is because there are a group of TNOs orbiting outside of the orbital plane of the solar system. They surmised that this was caused by the gravitational influence of a TNO object with a mass that is ~10[SUB]⊕[/SUB].

Our current Earth-based and space-based technology cannot see much further than Pluto. Trying to identify any object in the Kuiper Belt is extremely difficult. The majority of Kuiper Belt objects were identified when their orbits brought them into the inner solar system. Such as those TNOs they surmise were influenced by Planet 9's gravity.
 
Deuce said:
None of this is true at all, because you're fundamentally missing the fact that if Planet 9 were a black hole it would be one of very, very low mass.

It would have to be less mass than the Sun, which means its gravitational effects would be weaker than the Sun. Its time distortion would affect us less than the Sun, unless you got right up close to it.
Click to expand...

This thing is only roughly 85 Jupiter masses, so the effects would be roughly less than a hundredth of the sun's.* It cannot be stellar black hole given its mass, leaving the only non-planetary possibility being that it is a theoretical "primordial black hole", leftover from the big bang and which has not yet fully evaporated. We've never found one, nor should we expect to given what you say. Lensing would be minimal, and even that is probably a huge understatement.




_________________
* Sun: 1.989 × 10^30 kg

Jupiter: 1.898 × 10^27 kg

Roughly a thousandth of the sun's mass.
 
Glitch said:
ROFL! Three words that are never used to describe Wikipedia, except by the ignorant.
Click to expand...

Sorry. We can't all be the cosmologist whiz you pretend to be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom