# Talk:1633: Possible Undiscovered Planets

Why is it late? — tbc (talk) 16:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

No idea but it's weird. Just some random derp 18:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
It was because it is based on a completely new paper, so he had to make it on short notice See my comment below. --Kynde (talk) 07:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Why is Earth's "Distance from me" 10000km? -- 19:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The diameter of Earth is ~12000km and distances are measured from the center of the object (that why there is a "Planet ruled out because I would be inside them" zone). I suppose Earth should be placed at a distance of 6000km instead of 12000k (as it is the radius, not the diameter that matter here). 141.101.66.11 19:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Earth's distance seems to be to the left of the 10Mm marker on the distance line, to me, although it's hard to tell without a straightedge. Remember the plot is diameter to distance. 108.162.238.71 19:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but distance from Randall, and since he is typically standing on the ground, he is either 0 m from Earth (i.e. touching it), or 6000 km from the center. To be 12,000 km from Earth he would have to be either 6000 or 12000 km up in the air. Or else it is measured to the farthest point on Earth from Randall. That would be a strange situation though. I believe he just made this too quickly and did not think about it. If he had chosen radius rather than diameter then it would have been 6000 on both scales if using the center of the Earth. --Kynde (talk) 15:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

This comic bothers me because the diagonal line with Earth on it cannot possibly represent what it claims. Zero cannot be plotted on the X-axis with this log scale. The entire "I would be inside of them" region is bogus. 188.114.106.83 19:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Not if you're measuring to the center of the planet. 108.162.238.71 19:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
OK, it does make sense if you take the normal convention of arrival and turn it into total core penetration. Sorry about the signing thing. I never use this and wondered where the input for it was. I see now from googling around that you just put it at the end. 188.114.106.83 20:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Planets ruled out because we could see them during the day = Stars? 162.158.56.5 21:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Only stars that are close enough to see during the day. Actually, there's one star that is close enough that we can see it during the day, although for some reason Randall did not mark it on the chart: our Sun. (Every other star is so far away that it's off the chart.) —TobyBartels (talk) 21:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
And I agree that it's strange that Randall didn't mark the Sun. Furthermore, the Sun fits the Greek definition of planet. In fact, it fits any definition of planet better than birds or planes.--Pere prlpz (talk) 21:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
No not stars, this is just about planets -- you can see the moon in the day when in the right position compared to the sun. You would be able to see any planet during the day if the circular surface was sufficiently big, and with a planetary body that is a function of the size over the distance squared -- the moon is just so close that it does not have to that big 162.158.255.109 22:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
So shouldn't the "during the day" section be sloped, and include the moon? --162.158.252.227 23:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
I think during the day means stars. You get much bigger on the diameter axis then Jupiter, and it starts undergoing fusion, which we could see "during the day" even at far distances because they would be providing light themselves. Get it?162.158.56.5 05:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree that it means stars. Any body bigger than 1AU (or even a lot smaller) must be a star. The only alternative would be a nebula.--Pere prlpz (talk) 11:54, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I think Randall means "TENTH planet". 22:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Yawn. I think you're trolling. 198.41.238.32 03:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

The subtitling of planes as "Fool's Planets" is clearly intended to be analogous to "Fool's Gold", the mineral that looks a lot like gold to the (non-expert) eye. That is, if there's a bright spot of light in the sky (usually just before dusk or just after dawn) then it might be mistaken for a planet like Venus, but instead just be the glimmer of near-horizontal sunlight off of a wing-front or body-edge of plane too high to discern a shape/silhouette against the sky, too far away to see coloured navigation lights and just happens not to be leaving a contrail. At a glance, you might assume it was something astronomical. Only by keeping an eye on it could you be sure to discern relatively rapid (perhaps non-ecliptic) movement and other details that would at least suggest it was no higher than a satellite. (Of course, it would be techncally be a UFO, leastways until you actually identified it sufficiently.) 162.158.152.89 00:24, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, note the implication that Randall would keep Giant Bugs at least 100m away from him, at all times. Doubtless by running away. (Or else by closing the doors and windows of his 100m-radius house and hiding himself away under blankets in its centre???) 00:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the three lower planet dots are from left to right, Venus, Mars, Mercury based on their diameters which (unlike their distances from Randall) are invariant. Co149 (talk) 02:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that based on the Y-axis position, the order is Venus, Mars, Mercury. The relative sizing of the circles is misleading.108.162.237.68 04:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I guessed correctly, already Thursday, that this Fridays comic would be about Planet X (or Planet IX :-). See my post in Talk:1632: Palindrome :-) The reason it was delayed was that he could not have started making the comic before the news was released the day of the previous comics relase. See hereAstronomers say a Neptune-sized planet lurks beyond Pluto. --Kynde (talk) 07:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

How would the lack of birds more than 1000km away imply a flat earth? A flat earth would still have places with birds further than that from Randal. He's isnt even saying that those birds don't exist, just that they can't be mistaken for planets, most likely because he can't see that far, since the earth *isnt* flat.--162.158.152.245 09:04, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is the discussion appearing on the main page? 12:45, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes. User:RikerW

If distance is measured between center of mass of planet and Randall, then "Skin flora" is within a millimeter from Randall's center of mass. This sounds strange at first, but it shouldn't be too hard to bend yourself weirdly in a way that places your center of mass somewhere on your skin. --162.158.133.6 21:56, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Randall. I start teaching GCSE Astronomy this week - this is a perfect introduction! Cosmogoblin (talk) 23:04, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Not a fan of the misuse of "egocentric." It reads like someone who wants to use a vocabulary word to show off, but doesn't realize the full implications. As pointed out at the Wikipedia link, "Egocentrism is the inability to differentiate between self and other. More specifically, it is the inability to untangle subjective schemas from objective reality; an inability to understand or assume any perspective other than their own." It doesn't just mean "from my own perspective." Trlkly (talk) 03:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Maybe it is not used correctly? But measuring distance from "Me" to planet 9, instead of measuring from Earth seems to fit the bill of your description. This is a comic, so that is part of the joke though, and not something to do with the "real" Randall's ability to interact with other people... If you have a better way to get this into the description, this is after all a wiki so, just do it. ;-) --Kynde (talk) 15:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
It's egocentric in the same way that the classic New Yorker cover View of the World from 9th Avenue is egocentric. There's more detail for objects closer to the observer. A better word might be "parochial". I'm going to try to work this into the explanation somehow. —Scs (talk) 11:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

"Planet X now planet IX" is not correct. 'X' in 'Planet X' refers to 'X the unknown', not a Roman numeral. Even if Pluto were considered a planet alongside Ceres, Sedna, etc. and we had e.g. 13 "planets", the unknown one would still be called 'Planet X'. 141.101.64.173 12:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes it is a joke, and why there is a wiki link to planet X. But as planet X is now closer to being found than ever, and since it is called planet 9 here and on wiki, the jokes comes around. --Kynde (talk) 16:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

The joke on Superman, specially about the "confusion", seems to have been lost : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_a_Bird...It%27s_a_Plane...It%27s_Superman 162.158.126.229 16:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I am curious about the statement that "Jupiter is brighter than if it could reflect 100% of Sun's light.". How? Does Jupiter emanate light of its own? Miamiclay (talk) 18:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I hope someone will enjoy my modified version of the image from the Trivia section. I really enjoyed this comic :-) --Kynde (talk) 23:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Space.com today has a story about a newly confirmed dwarf planet 2014 UZ224, which by diameter and distance would be just below the AR in "DWARF PLANETS". --Egress (talk) 00:00, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Technically, Uranus should be just within the "Planets we can see at night" section, as it's visible using averted vision with a reasonably-dark sky, and Neptune should be right on the border with the "Planets we can see with telescopes" section, as it's (theoretically, at least) just barely visible at its brightest using averted vision by someone with very good eyesight under an extremely dark sky. Whoop whoop pull up (talk) 15:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)