Extreme trans-Neptunian object (English Wikipedia)

Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Extreme trans-Neptunian object" in English language version.

refsWebsite
Global rank English rank
2nd place
2nd place
18th place
17th place
69th place
59th place
11th place
8th place
485th place
440th place
75th place
83rd place
936th place
713th place
102nd place
76th place
1st place
1st place
4th place
4th place
low place
low place
1,160th place
737th place
3,691st place
3,233rd place
low place
9,862nd place
low place
low place
8,565th place
5,337th place
9th place
13th place
857th place
3,832nd place
114th place
90th place
2,529th place
3,277th place
low place
low place
1,397th place
1,604th place
14th place
14th place
low place
low place
774th place
716th place
low place
low place
low place
low place

aas.org

archive.today

arxiv.org

carnegiescience.edu

ciw.edu

home.dtm.ciw.edu

doi.org

findplanetnine.com

handle.net

hdl.handle.net

harvard.edu

ui.adsabs.harvard.edu

iac.es

ing.iac.es

iflscience.com

mikebrownsplanets.com

minorplanetcenter.net

nasa.gov

ssd.jpl.nasa.gov

newscientist.com

nih.gov

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

oup.com

academic.oup.com

qub.ac.uk

pure.qub.ac.uk

science.org

  • "Objects beyond Neptune provide fresh evidence for Planet Nine". 2016-10-25. The new evidence leaves astronomer Scott Sheppard of the Carnegie Institution for Science in Washington, D.C., "probably 90% sure there's a planet out there." But others say the clues are sparse and unconvincing. "I give it about a 1% chance of turning out to be real," says astronomer JJ Kavelaars, of the Dominion Astrophysical Observatory in Victoria, Canada.

sciencemag.org

semanticscholar.org

api.semanticscholar.org

space.com

theverge.com

  • Grush, Loren (20 January 2016). "Our solar system may have a ninth planet after all — but not all evidence is in (We still haven't seen it yet)". The Verge. Retrieved 18 July 2016. The statistics do sound promising, at first. The researchers say there's a 1 in 15,000 chance that the movements of these objects are coincidental and don't indicate a planetary presence at all. ... 'When we usually consider something as clinched and air tight, it usually has odds with a much lower probability of failure than what they have,' says Sara Seager, a planetary scientist at MIT. For a study to be a slam dunk, the odds of failure are usually 1 in 1,744,278 . ... But researchers often publish before they get the slam-dunk odds, in order to avoid getting scooped by a competing team, Seager says. Most outside experts agree that the researchers' models are strong. And Neptune was originally detected in a similar fashion — by researching observed anomalies in the movement of Uranus. Additionally, the idea of a large planet at such a distance from the Sun isn't actually that unlikely, according to Bruce Macintosh, a planetary scientist at Stanford University.

universetoday.com

univie.ac.at

web.archive.org

youtube.com