Skip to main content
Astronomy

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

9
  • 53
    $\begingroup$ It wouldn't have been Pluto, it's far too small and faint to be seen without a really powerful telescope. It was most likely a star that just happened to be in roughly the same place. $\endgroup$
    – user10106
    Commented Mar 15, 2018 at 16:50
  • 20
    $\begingroup$ I agree with the previous statement. There's absolutely no chance to see Pluto with your naked eye. One can't even see objects of Plutos size in the asteroid belt (which is much closer) with the naked eye. $\endgroup$
    – AtmosphericPrisonEscape
    Commented Mar 15, 2018 at 17:12
  • 24
    $\begingroup$ Thanks for setting me straight. Good thing I didn't go into the real world bragging yet. $\endgroup$
    – Jason P Sallinger
    Commented Mar 15, 2018 at 17:47
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Pluto is so small that it fails to fully occult stars. That's small enough to twinkle. But I still think you fooled yourself. $\endgroup$
    – Joshua
    Commented Mar 15, 2018 at 21:12
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ If Pluto was visible to the naked eye, it would have been known since antiquity. But it was not, neither were Uranus or Neptune which are closer, larger, and brighter. $\endgroup$
    – swbarnes2
    Commented Mar 16, 2018 at 17:00