A new planet

Yes.

I said yes.

Glad we agree. :)

Wikipedia used the word "hypothesized" in the first line of every entry I saw today on dark matter.  Observations show more gravity is needed, all newer theories on gravity are doing that, increasing gravity.  The old method was to increase mass via dark matter to increase the force of gravity on the visable mass and not change the theory. As stated elsewhere, time is telling.

You do realise that information was included in the quote?

There are many dwarf planets in our solar system, in the asteroid belt, the Kuiper belt and even the Oort Cloud. But how did these dwarf planets get into the Oort Cloud? As a result from the migration of Jupiter and Saturn that sent a 5th giant planet out of our solar system? Maybe if we find this planet traversing interstellar space then we can figure out why they are there. Maybe if we figure this out, the Gravity problem will be solved. The reason why there are large bodies in Oort Cloud could be because of this planet being flung out of the solar system by Jupiter and Saturn. If so, then newtons gravity doesn't explain it because he said that the planets can't break from their orbits.

I take your point, that the word "planets" on its own officially excludes dwarf planets. Of course, this is one of the lousiest decisions in scientific terminology since someone thought it would be a great idea to call tardigrades "water bears" and Lepisma saccharina "silver fish". Actually, much worse.

I suppose I am still in denial about the irrationality of calling something a type of planet but not considering it a planet.

Yes. That is why they met up in 2006 and... You know the rest.

The correct decision was to call 8 planets "major planets" and all the rest "minor planets".

That would make the Earth-Moon system a binary planet, not a binary planet-(dwarf planet).

Well, we DO have the biggest moon relative the the size of the planet in THE KNOWN UNIVERSE!!! AND, our moon is bigger than the PLANET Mercury!!! Maybe we ARE a binary planet system. Pluto and Charon are binary dwarf planets.

It is reasonable to call it a binary planet. For one thing, the Moon's path round the Sun merely oscillates, never reverses, as it is deflected by the Earth.

Of course this entire diversionary discussion has merely been about labels. Real world phenomena are far more interesting.

I always thought it was a bit unfair that Astronomy has a name meaning "naming stars", while Astrology had hijacked a more substantial term, long ago.

Yes, but it doesn't have an iron core...

I bet this one does, though:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-27054366

Interesting.  I wonder if any form of life could develope on it.

That is an interesting question.

I am amazed to hear this planet is 500 light years away. Why haven't they found any nearer examples first?

I was just going to ask how far away it was. I guess I missed reading it. There might not be any nearer earth like planets. I remember some thread Bram made a few months back stating that there were some habital planets discovered that were about thirteen light years away. I guess he was trying to indicate that there could be some of his corny UFOs flying around, cause the planets were so "close." :)))

It is possible that soon astronomers will be able to detect oxygen in the atmospheres of planets. If one such planet is discovered, it is highly likely there is life there.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2014/03/searching-for-oxygen-molecules-on-alien-planets-a-new-et-search-technique-a-team-of-astronomers-have-realized-that-oxygen.html

My guess is that not many planets will have photosynthetic life. One more would be great though!

Good article.