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

Astronomy

4884 readers
21 users here now

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 34 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] wise_pancake@lemmy.ca 35 points 1 week 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 1 week ago (3 children)

Dwarf or not, Pluto is STILL a planet.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 24 points 1 week 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 1 week ago

It’s also not a sea

[–] WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago (3 children)

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

[–] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 5 days ago

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

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 15 points 1 week 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 1 week 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.

[–] tiny_hedgehog@lemm.ee 16 points 1 week 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 1 week 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 1 week 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 1 week 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 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week 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 1 week ago

You are right. I stand corrected.

[–] remotelove@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 week ago

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

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

I mean, they said "roughly".

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

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

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

Fair, but annoying to the pendantic.

[–] powerofm@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

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

[–] bjoern_tantau@swg-empire.de 12 points 1 week 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.

[–] Microw@lemm.ee 2 points 4 days 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 4 days ago
[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 9 points 1 week 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 1 week ago
[–] Zachariah@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

“Planet 9” starts with “P”

[–] edgemaster72@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

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

[–] JadenSmith@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 week ago

They prefer to be called little planets, tyvm.

[–] MadMadBunny@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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

[–] collapse_already@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Don't forget Eris. Weighs more than Pluto.

[–] MadMadBunny@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago

Oh shit yeah… So, 8.4 then?

[–] NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone 3 points 1 week 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

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 week 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?