all 35 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 36 points 1 year ago (1 child)

This far-flung orbit may be the result of an encounter with a giant planet, which ejected the candidate dwarf planet out of the solar system, say the researchers.

Poor guy. Hopefully he's out there finding his own family.

At least it doesn't have to deal with the toxicity Pluto does, being in the family one day and then coldly rejected from the family from the planet club the next. And we wonder why it's exterior is frozen...

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Dwarf or not, Pluto is STILL a planet.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    It's not, actually. "Planet" and "Dwarf planet" are disjoint sets, according to the IAU.

    Is a sea lion still a lion? Same thing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Well, screw the IAU. What the hell does "clearing your neighborhood" even mean?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago

    This article goes into great detail about the various methods that one can use to measure or calculate the orbit-clearing capability of an orbiting body.

    It turns out that for all of these different methods, you will find an extremely clear bimodal distribution that groups the 8 planets together as being highly capable of clearing their orbits whereas everything else falls into a statistically distinct non-clearing group. This is because there's sound dynamic reasons for why objects would fall into one group or the other with nothing lasting long in the "grey area" between them. Once an object becomes significantly better than its orbital neighbors at clearing the neighborhood it snowballs due to the feedback loop of scattering or absorbing its neighbors into itself.

    That makes this a good criterion for classification. As the old saying goes, "cleave nature at the joints."

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    “The object is currently about 90.5 astronomical units (AU) away from us, or roughly 90 times as far from Earth as the sun is.”

    This sentence pissed me off so much and I stopped reading after it.

    It is 90.5 times as far from the Sun as the Earth is from the Sun. Why’d you have to go and change the frame of reference to Earth?

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    It didn't. It's 90.5 AU from us, and us is Earth. Or do you live on the Sun?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    If we are 1AU from the sun, and this planet is 90AU from the sun, then it is between 89 and 91 AUs from earth depending on the progress of our orbits (assuming perfectly circular orbits). So they did change the frame of reference.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Ugh, didn't read the "dwarf" part and got my hopes up for planet 9. When they eventually do find it they have to name it something with P so that the old mnemonics still work.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Obviously there's a Planet X out there, where else would Chemical X come from

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago

    They prefer to be called little planets, tyvm.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    When we hit the floor you just watch them move aside
    We will take them for a ride of rides
    They all love your miniature ways
    You know what they say about small boys

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    So, draft planet 8.1 ? 8.3 because of Pluto and Charron?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    How do Sedna and that new one have a stable orbit? Are they that fast, to be able to compensate the movement of Pluto?

  • source