Detached object has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
July 17, 2008. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that there are nine known
trans-Neptunian
detached objects in our
Solar System? | |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Before this gets GA reviewed, is there really not enough content to warrant sections? Gary King ( talk) 07:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Looking these guys up on Buie it seems that (82075) 2000 YW134 might be in a 8:3 resonance. But the last observation shows as 2004/04/16. The Lykawka reference in this article was written in 2006. Lykawka looks to have used a 4–5 Gyr integration while Buie is only doing a 10My integration. So I am not sure what to think of this yet.
Buie shows 2003 UY291 as classical. But again the last observation was 2005/12/02. I am not sure how to explain this unless Lykawka used an older data set for his calculations. -- Kheider ( talk) 06:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
read here: [2]. Nergaal ( talk) 19:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
My initial thought is that it may be premature to combine the two. The spherical Hills Cloud is still somewhat hypothetical in that it can not yet be shown to exist. But computer simulations show that known objects are "detached" (beyond significant gravitational interactions with Neptune's current orbit.) Only 3 of the current detached candidates have aphelion well beyond 100 AU. -- Kheider ( talk) 22:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Nergaal ( talk) 01:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually that article makes the list bigger. :-) Most of the 100% resonance probability objects are simple 5:2 resonances. Some notable likely resonances are:
-- Kheider ( talk) 08:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
In April of 2009, Marc Buie informed me that that they (the Deep Ecliptic Survey?) were "in the process of revising our classification scheme (hopefully for the better)." I have since looked at some of the objects that I have used Buie to list as ScatEXT (detached) and most are now listed as ScatNEAR. I then realized that I no longer had any idea how to properly perceive a true ScatEXT object. We need to find out how the DES or minor planet is now defining ScatNEAR/EXT objects. I honestly don't think they are using their old 2005-2006 definition. Thus, I have also lowered this article to C-class. -- Kheider ( talk) 17:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
The DES is working on their software. Some of their links are not even currently active. I think this article might need more "peer reviewed" papers to qualify for GA level. In August I was bold and actually lowered this article from B-class to C-class. But perhaps others think it is GA level. -- Kheider ( talk) 21:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I do think it's a potential GA given a bit more citing the obvious, but I'll defer to your view and add a requirement for working citations to the GA review.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 21:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
The
Deep Ecliptic Survey references (Orbit Fit and Astrometric record) seem to up and running again and are no longer strongly in conflict with previous results. But:
Keep in mind that if I was to take the DES results as flawless I would have to accept a lot of objects as detached that are also classical, ie.: 20000 Varuna and Makemake. But then again, perhaps it is correct to say that all un- perturbed objects are detached. Where do we draw the line since the Minor Planet Center and Deep Ecliptic Survey define classical somewhat differently? The DES runs a 10 million year simulation, I do not know how exactly the MPC defines a classical object. -- Kheider ( talk) 22:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
The last detached object in the list was discovered in 2006. Have there been any new detached objects discoveries since that time? -- Jan.Kamenicek ( talk) 12:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Since the DES/Buie 10 million year simulation was used as a source in this article and moved to a new server in 2009 with different software libraries (gremlins), I have often wondered if the 2009 version of this list was better. -- Kheider ( talk) 14:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Can someone expand the table to add the semimajor axis length to the table? -- 70.24.250.235 ( talk) 09:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Detached object has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
July 17, 2008. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that there are nine known
trans-Neptunian
detached objects in our
Solar System? | |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Before this gets GA reviewed, is there really not enough content to warrant sections? Gary King ( talk) 07:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Looking these guys up on Buie it seems that (82075) 2000 YW134 might be in a 8:3 resonance. But the last observation shows as 2004/04/16. The Lykawka reference in this article was written in 2006. Lykawka looks to have used a 4–5 Gyr integration while Buie is only doing a 10My integration. So I am not sure what to think of this yet.
Buie shows 2003 UY291 as classical. But again the last observation was 2005/12/02. I am not sure how to explain this unless Lykawka used an older data set for his calculations. -- Kheider ( talk) 06:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
read here: [2]. Nergaal ( talk) 19:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
My initial thought is that it may be premature to combine the two. The spherical Hills Cloud is still somewhat hypothetical in that it can not yet be shown to exist. But computer simulations show that known objects are "detached" (beyond significant gravitational interactions with Neptune's current orbit.) Only 3 of the current detached candidates have aphelion well beyond 100 AU. -- Kheider ( talk) 22:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Nergaal ( talk) 01:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually that article makes the list bigger. :-) Most of the 100% resonance probability objects are simple 5:2 resonances. Some notable likely resonances are:
-- Kheider ( talk) 08:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
In April of 2009, Marc Buie informed me that that they (the Deep Ecliptic Survey?) were "in the process of revising our classification scheme (hopefully for the better)." I have since looked at some of the objects that I have used Buie to list as ScatEXT (detached) and most are now listed as ScatNEAR. I then realized that I no longer had any idea how to properly perceive a true ScatEXT object. We need to find out how the DES or minor planet is now defining ScatNEAR/EXT objects. I honestly don't think they are using their old 2005-2006 definition. Thus, I have also lowered this article to C-class. -- Kheider ( talk) 17:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
The DES is working on their software. Some of their links are not even currently active. I think this article might need more "peer reviewed" papers to qualify for GA level. In August I was bold and actually lowered this article from B-class to C-class. But perhaps others think it is GA level. -- Kheider ( talk) 21:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I do think it's a potential GA given a bit more citing the obvious, but I'll defer to your view and add a requirement for working citations to the GA review.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 21:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
The
Deep Ecliptic Survey references (Orbit Fit and Astrometric record) seem to up and running again and are no longer strongly in conflict with previous results. But:
Keep in mind that if I was to take the DES results as flawless I would have to accept a lot of objects as detached that are also classical, ie.: 20000 Varuna and Makemake. But then again, perhaps it is correct to say that all un- perturbed objects are detached. Where do we draw the line since the Minor Planet Center and Deep Ecliptic Survey define classical somewhat differently? The DES runs a 10 million year simulation, I do not know how exactly the MPC defines a classical object. -- Kheider ( talk) 22:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
The last detached object in the list was discovered in 2006. Have there been any new detached objects discoveries since that time? -- Jan.Kamenicek ( talk) 12:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Since the DES/Buie 10 million year simulation was used as a source in this article and moved to a new server in 2009 with different software libraries (gremlins), I have often wondered if the 2009 version of this list was better. -- Kheider ( talk) 14:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Can someone expand the table to add the semimajor axis length to the table? -- 70.24.250.235 ( talk) 09:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)