From space.com:

"The hidden world -- thought to be much bigger than Pluto based on the model -- could explain unusual features of the Kuiper Belt, a region of space beyond Neptune littered with icy and rocky bodies. Its existence would satisfy the long-held hopes and hypotheses for a "Planet X" envisioned by scientists and sci-fi buffs alike."

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

Relax Dim; it's not Nibiru. It's too far out to ever come into contact with Earth. Still, Lakwka's Planet X is very probable, and has been discussed for a while before his model was announced. Mike Brown's looking for it and similar objects right now, because he wants to try and break the planet definition. Which is why I like the guy.

__________________
Wikipedia: A MMORPG for self-denialists.

It's gotten to the point where careful investigation is needed just to tell parody from reality. I think that means reality is broken.- Noclevername.

Thanks, lax.

Although I haven't suggested it is Nibiru nor have I ever stated Nibiru comes into contact with Earth.

Have I?

Brown, Whitmire, Murray, Matese, Levison...

I like'em all!

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

A.DIM's link is broken. Try this one instead.

I hope they do find a world larger than Pluto out there. That would be pretty neat.

__________________
Yes, they laughed at Einstein, but only because of his silly hairstyle; no one was actually laughing at his science.

Indeed.

Like many others, I think the outer system holds some big surprises.

New Horizons can't get there fast enough!

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

I suspected that myself...

I read in between the lines of the story that the real news is that they are able to model the inconsistancies of the belt which may be an important tool leading to the discoveries. The article reads as a story that the plutoid may exist, which I feel is important to the story, but not the main topic.
But; if the planet concept is the only "oooh" that the general public can get out of it...

(MSNBC carried the space.com verbatum.)

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

Likewise I noted this story seemed to really only rehash the announcement made Jan-Feb(?) this year; same scientists, same model, same prediciton.

"Ah well," I thought, "if they think it's news, keeping it fresh in the minds of readers..."

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

If this thing's out there, it would be a genuine planet, not a plutoid. If it was about as big as Mercury, it would still be a plutoid, but if it's, as they think, as big as Earth or Mars, then it would be a planet because it would exceed the total mass of all the material in its orbital zone.

__________________
Wikipedia: A MMORPG for self-denialists.

It's gotten to the point where careful investigation is needed just to tell parody from reality. I think that means reality is broken.- Noclevername.

Not according to the article. But; you may be right, because I'm not qualified to interpret the IAU definition myself.

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

Yeah, the use of "plutoid" shocked me.

I think anything large enough to have perturbed the outer system will be a proper planet, at least.

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

It's not you; no one is qualified to interpret the IAU definition because the IAU definition makes no sense.

It's the IAU that apparently is not qualified to be making these definitions in the first place.

Haven't they already found one?

__________________
"All your bias are belong to us." Ara Pacis
"A witty saying proves nothing." Voltaire

True. I should have said a lot bigger.

__________________
Yes, they laughed at Einstein, but only because of his silly hairstyle; no one was actually laughing at his science.

I think about phrase often repeated in news and from some plutonists - that IAU definition allegedly somewhere contains "thou shall be only 8 planets". I cannot see how this is that - for example, if we found some big orb that resides by Kuiper Belt cutoff, it would be NINTH planet. Goes around sun? Check. Round? Check. Cleared neighbourhood*? Check.

* I personally prefer term "gravitational dominance". Easier to answer whining, er, questions like "buuut what with trojan satelitees, buut Pluto crosseees Neptune".

__________________
Sanity is overrated.
Butterfly.

is that "Planet X" as in "Planet 10" or is it "Planet we don't have a name for yet, and X is just a cool sounding place holder"?
if it's the first one, then they better change it to "Planet IX"..

__________________
"blacker than the blackest black... times infinity."- Nathan Explosion
The.. Best.. Thread..Ever...

I know this well.

Tell this to plutonists - they claim that definition practically allows only 8 already known planets without possibility of new planets. I seen that in some news and in some comments on various forums. This is why I addressed it and asked, how that can be true.

__________________
Sanity is overrated.
Butterfly.

Planet X simply means an unknown, as yet undiscovered planet. The term X is used here the way it is in math, as in "solve for x," with x meaning the unknown.

Interesting new term you've coined, "plutonists." I guess I fall into that category. Speaking only for myself, I can say that my problem with the IAU definition is not that it only allows for eight planets (it's unclear whether or not that is the case) but that it states that a dwarf planet is not a subclass of planet. Orbital dominance may be a characteristic of many planets, but it should not be a requirement for an object to be considered a planet.

For now, I am interested only in one thing: do IAU definition allows for new planets or not?

Why it is unclear? For me, this definition allows for that.

I even have an example: hypothetical planetary-like body could be found as reason to cutoff of Kuiper Belt. if so, that body would fullfill all conditions, therefore it would be NINTH planet.

To remind:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuiper_...uiper_cliff.22

__________________
Sanity is overrated.
Butterfly.