It is almost five years since the announcement of the likelyhood of another planet that is responsible for clustering eTNO's orbits, very close perihelia of detached dwarf planets to the Sun, and high inclinations of TNO's orbits. Since then there have been 316 new TNO discoveries by the Dark Energy Survey and some claim the observed clusterings are due to observational bias and that the DES disproved the necessity of planet Nine. Others still claim only a planet Nine seems to explain the observed orbits. Who is right?

Either the existence of planet Nine was really concluded from observational bias or there is indeed a likely mass that is responsible. Is Planet Nine still the most reasonable explanation for the orbital parameters of the 14 TNOs in question?

  • $\begingroup$ There's a recent Astrobites article about this. $\endgroup$
    – Mike G
    Dec 28 '20 at 14:51
  • $\begingroup$ @MikeG Thank you. Quite revealing. $\endgroup$
    – Greenhorn
    Dec 28 '20 at 15:11

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.