There are other ways besides seeing changes in orbits to confirm the existence of a body. Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn are easily seen with the eye, for instance.
Planet 9 might be confirmed with infrared surveys as a post from last week discussed or some other method.
You are right, I was only replying to the parent article, where the incorrect argument was stated, that the orbits pointing to an external attractor mean that it exists now in that direction.
There may be one or more big planets at great distances from the Sun, but not for the reason stated in the parent article, which is better explained by an ancient star flyby.
'A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.'
— Max Planck
Which is a funny thing for someone who lived through and contributed to at least one entire upending of paradigms to say.
PLENTY of science proceeds without anyone dying. Usually it just requires insanely entertaining loud arguments at large conventions. Go lookup the philosophical arguments about early thermodynamics and like statistical mechanics.
Science advances one unexplainable datapoint at a time.
I think it's an omnipresent concern in people with 10-20% kidney function left, and outside that cohort, it's a concern if you're getting a supermajority of your calories from protein for a prolonged period of time (which is quite rare/expensive for most of us)
Most people who eat "high protein diets" are not actually eating all that much protein, because their food is laced with lots of fat and some carbs. The guy eating burgers and sausage all day long is actually on a high-fat diet. This fools people because fat is so nutritionally dense, and because lean protein is basically always chock-full of bulky water. The soy "protein" I'm eating still has fat and carbs.
I've heard there is good evidence that weightlifters eating an appropriate (high) protein intake for hypertrophy don't harm healthy kidneys, though the sources seemed biased.
But has that statement been debunked for sedentary people or people with kidney disease?
> As long as you have don’t have pre-existing kidney issues, you don’t need to worry about high-protein intakes killing your kidneys, and it’s time to put this myth to bed.
Unfortunately most of the research cited there was in "resistance-trained" individuals (and one in nurses, who are far from sedentary). The meta analysis also included at least some research on active individuals. And the author is a bodybuilder and fitness coach.
The one study of overweight individuals mentioned found no adverse side effects but only lasted six months, which may not be long enough for clinical effects to become obvious.
Also, the author overlooked gout entirely.
Based on all that, I'm not convinced it is safe for sedentary individuals.
I think the author should have written:
> As long as you are highly active and have don’t have pre-existing kidney issues...
An example is that thin people cannot possibly have sleep apnea, it only affects overweight people. Overly-confident Dunning-Kruger doctors adamantly declared this as "truth" to me enough times that it stalled me getting properly treated at least a decade.
You already can with opensource models. Its kind of insane how good they're getting. There's all sorts of finetunes available on huggingface - with all sorts of weird behaviour and knowledge programmed in, if thats what you're after.
This is at the other extreme end though. They could do nothing and call the agreement to explore satisfied. Would rather they wait till they've removed at least three of the hedging words.
Planet 9 might be confirmed with infrared surveys as a post from last week discussed or some other method.
reply