this post was submitted on 23 May 2025
177 points (100.0% liked)

Astronomy

5150 readers
15 users here now

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 31 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] wise_pancake@lemmy.ca 35 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

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...

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 9 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

Dwarf or not, Pluto is STILL a planet.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 24 points 3 weeks 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.

[–] LanguageIsCool@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago

It’s also not a sea

[–] WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

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

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 15 points 3 weeks 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."

[–] MadMadBunny@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 weeks ago

There are so many nasty potential jokes I decided not to get involved. Fuck it I ain’t touching that with a 30-foot pole.

[–] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 3 weeks ago

it means that either pluto isn't a planet, or basically the entire fucking asteroid belt it's part of is all planets

[–] tiny_hedgehog@lemm.ee 16 points 3 weeks 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?

[–] Etterra@discuss.online 20 points 3 weeks ago

Well it's a good frame of reference because it's where most of us keep all our stuff.

[–] Kichae@lemmy.ca 17 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

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

[–] tiny_hedgehog@lemm.ee -1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

[–] lud@lemm.ee 5 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

This dwarf planet is 90 AU from US not from the sun. They just said that the dwarf planet is 90 AU away from us and that 1 AU is equal to the distance between the sun and the earth.

But since the dwarf planets orbit is extremely eccentric that varies heavily.

[–] tiny_hedgehog@lemm.ee 1 points 3 weeks ago

You are right. I stand corrected.

[–] remotelove@lemmy.ca 5 points 3 weeks ago

They didn't change the reference, they defined an AU.

[–] AlbinoPython@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I mean, they said "roughly".

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Like, give or take one AU, throughout the year.

[–] tiny_hedgehog@lemm.ee -1 points 3 weeks ago

Fair, but annoying to the pendantic.

[–] powerofm@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

"It's 20.5°C outside or roughly 20 notches on your thermometer (except for americans)"

[–] bjoern_tantau@swg-empire.de 12 points 3 weeks 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.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 9 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I've heard that the sign of a fair bargain is that everybody leaves unhappy. So how about we name it "Pluto?" That should annoy pretty much everyone.

[–] SuperEars@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago
[–] Zachariah@lemmy.world 7 points 3 weeks ago

“Planet 9” starts with “P”

[–] Microw@lemm.ee 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

This study authors btw say that their models for 2017 OF201's orbit work best without the influence of a hypothetical planet 9

[–] bjoern_tantau@swg-empire.de 1 points 3 weeks ago
[–] edgemaster72@lemmy.world 10 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

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

[–] JadenSmith@sh.itjust.works 9 points 3 weeks ago

They prefer to be called little planets, tyvm.

[–] NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone 4 points 3 weeks 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

[–] MadMadBunny@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 weeks ago

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