Slashdot Mirror


New Object Found at Edge of Solar System

Rei writes to tell us NewScientist is reporting that a new object has been found beyond Pluto. The new object, nicknamed "Buffy", has an almost circular orbit which is tilted some 47 degrees off of most other bodies in our solar system. From the article: "Neptune has been blamed for scattering many other [Kuiper Belt Objects] into tilted paths. But these tend to show other signs of a past interaction with the giant planet, such as moving in elliptical paths and having one part of their orbit pass near Neptune's at 30 astronomical units from the Sun. [Buffy], however, follows a nearly circular path. And it is too distant to have come into direct contact with Neptune, traveling between 52 and 62 AU from the Sun. Its orbit is also too circular - and too small - to have been tilted by a passing star."

201 of 280 comments (clear)

  1. What I want to know is ... by eldavojohn · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... how many vampires has it slain? :-)

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:What I want to know is ... by ericdano · · Score: 1

      And where is Spike? And Angel? And Willow? And Zander......the list goes on.....

      --
      It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
      I moderate therefore I rule!
      --
    2. Re:What I want to know is ... by Thangodin · · Score: 1

      We gotta get this name to stick. I'm sure there is a critical mass of Buffy fans amongst the scientific community to get it done...

      And centuries in the future, when they ask why it's called Buffy, they will pull out the old shows, and they will say, "Yeah, of course, celestial body and all that..."

    3. Re:What I want to know is ... by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      Circular orbit? That sounds peaceful. How about Serenity? Call the type of objects Fireflies...

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    4. Re:What I want to know is ... by QMO · · Score: 1

      Somehow I had never thought to see "critical" and "Buffy fan" applied to the same person.

      --
      Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
  2. Heechee? by MacBrave · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Gateway here we come!!!!

    1. Re:Heechee? by NReitzel · · Score: 1

      "God is Watching us... From a Distance."

      --

      Don't take life too seriously; it isn't permanent.

    2. Re:Heechee? by Bit_Squeezer · · Score: 1

      Funny, I had the same thought. Heechee heaven. If you wanted to not loose something. A circular orbit a few billion klicks from the primary ought to be good for a while.

    3. Re:Heechee? by boog3r · · Score: 1

      My first thought as well, you beat me to it. Great set of books!

      --
      signatures are for fools with hands
    4. Re:Heechee? by Ken+Broadfoot · · Score: 1

      Good one!

      My first thought also...

      Frederich Pohl kicks ass...

      --ken

      --
      Bitcoin pyramid: Join here: http://www.bitcoinpyramid.com/r/1427 it's FREE!
    5. Re:Heechee? by s-meister · · Score: 1

      Indeed, he does. He taught me how to count to 1023 on my fingers and thumbs. I've not needed to get my shoes and socks off yet...

  3. Other names by Rei · · Score: 2, Informative

    Just to point out that while few if any of these nicknames are going to stick once the IAU has a whack at it, we now have:

    Xena (and moon Gabrielle)
    Easterbunny
    Santa (and moon Rudolph, plus one unnamed)
    Buffy

    Am I missing any of the new wacky-named bodies? :)

    --
    Man on crucifix terrorizes church, demands they eat his flesh and blood. Details at 11.
    1. Re:Other names by johnny+cashed · · Score: 2, Funny

      Those names are no wackier than Uranus.

    2. Re:Other names by slavemowgli · · Score: 1

      Easterbunny?

      --
      quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
    3. Re:Other names by Rei · · Score: 1

      Yes - 2005 FY9. Santa is 2003 EL61.

      --
      Man on crucifix terrorizes church, demands they eat his flesh and blood. Details at 11.
    4. Re:Other names by Rakshasa+Taisab · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Seems to me that the habit of naming new celestial bodies after pop-culture icons haven't changed during the few thousands of years we've been at it.

      --
      - These characters were randomly selected.
    5. Re:Other names by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Sorry Fry, But Scientists renamed Uranus in 2620 to end that stupid joke.
      What's it called now?
      Urectum

    6. Re:Other names by rodentia · · Score: 2, Funny



      Wrecked 'em, hell, it killed 'em.

      --
      illegitimii non ingravare
    7. Re:Other names by hanshotfirst · · Score: 3, Funny

      Santa (and moon Rudolph, plus one unnamed)

      For the un-named moon, I submit the suggestion... "Olive, the Other Reindeer."

      Unless, of course, "That's not a moon..."

      --
      Why, oh why, didn't I take the Blue Pill?
    8. Re:Other names by slavemowgli · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hmm. In the words of the comic book guy: Worst. Codename. Ever. :)

      --
      quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
    9. Re:Other names by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      Space Ghost!

      Or is this crowd too young to remember those commercials from pre-Adult Swim?

    10. Re:Other names by Ayaress · · Score: 1

      When they discovered Pluto's two small outer moons a while back, I'd seen some people temporarily refering to them as Donald and Mickey. Not sure if either has final names, but I still liked the suggested Styx and Cerberus.

    11. Re:Other names by pimpsoftcom · · Score: 1

      Names like 'Neptune' and 'Jupiter' are based on names based in religion for these times, not 'pop-culture icons' as you so claim. People *worshipped* the namesakes of the planets as gods not mortal celebrity, and the planets themselves served at some point as symbolic representations of the deities they represented.

      To say they are 'pop culture icons' is to deny the very history you are referencing, and may be construed by some as insulting or even bigoted against the pagan religions of that time.

      And no, This was not a flame or a troll. I'm just doing my best to educate others and give my - cheap at .02 cents - input to correct what I see as the wrong way of looking at things. No offence intended.

      --
      - d
    12. Re:Other names by weinbrenner · · Score: 1

      The planet Neptune got its name in the year 1846.
      Do you really believe that there were still many Neptune worshippers around?

    13. Re:Other names by cjsm · · Score: 1

      The ancients couldn't see Neptune. Its invisible to the neaked eye. You need a telescope to see it. Where did you get you info from? Did you pull it out of your @$$?

      --
      This ad space for rent.
    14. Re:Other names by I_M_Noman · · Score: 1
      I do happen to know a couple of fellows with eerie, buzzing voices, who insist on referring to Pluto as "Yuggoth".
      Iä! Shub-Niggurath! The Black Goat of the Woods with a Thousand Young!
    15. Re:Other names by AGMW · · Score: 2, Funny
      Those names are no wackier than Uranus.

      Not The Nine O'Clock News sketch about a newly discovered planet they were going to call Bumhole, but pronounced Boomholay!

      I'm laughing now, and I every time I think about it!

      ... or was it someone else, as I can't find a NTNOCN reference to it!

      --
      Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
      handmadehands.co.uk
    16. Re:Other names by metamatic · · Score: 1

      What I don't get is why people who are embarrassed about having a planet that sounds like "your anus" feel it's much better to have it sound like "urineous", 'of or resembling urine'.

      I guess it's all about varying the pronounciation to get the right balance of urine and anus.

      --
      GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
  4. I vote that we send Joss Whedon there. by Silverlancer · · Score: 3, Funny

    I vote that we send Joss Whedon to explore this "Buffy."

    1. Re:I vote that we send Joss Whedon there. by Rei · · Score: 4, Funny

      Great idea! Joss could take people out to colonize the rim. Meanwhile, here in the central planets, we could form an alliance so that everyone could enjoy the comfort and enlightenment of true civilization!

      ("River, honey, he's putting the hair away now...")

      --
      Man on crucifix terrorizes church, demands they eat his flesh and blood. Details at 11.
    2. Re:I vote that we send Joss Whedon there. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      Great idea! Joss could take people out to colonize the rim.

      how many people exactly do you need to get rid of?

    3. Re:I vote that we send Joss Whedon there. by pastpolls · · Score: 2, Funny

      I vote that we send Joss Whedon to explore this "Buffy."

      If it is anywhere near as good looking as Sarah Michelle Gellar, I will happily go up there and probe it.

    4. Re:I vote that we send Joss Whedon there. by NewbieProgrammerMan · · Score: 2, Funny

      We should start with telephone sanitizers and the like, but I can't imagine we'd need to send away more than about a third of the population.

      --
      [b.belong('us') for b in bases if b.owner() == 'you']
    5. Re:I vote that we send Joss Whedon there. by hobbit · · Score: 2, Funny


      Okay buddy, we're right behind you!

      --
      "Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
    6. Re:I vote that we send Joss Whedon there. by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 1

      "Great idea! Joss could take people out to colonize the rim. Meanwhile, here in the central planets, we could form an alliance so that everyone could enjoy the comfort and enlightenment of true civilization!"

      Yeah, but judging from *Serenity*'s box office take, Joss would only be taking ten "Browncoats" along for the voyage with him... :)

      --
      "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
    7. Re:I vote that we send Joss Whedon there. by pimpsoftcom · · Score: 2, Funny

      You may be too young, statisticly the average age of the men Buffy dates is 133 years or so.

      --
      - d
    8. Re:I vote that we send Joss Whedon there. by Necronomicode · · Score: 1

      Well I would definitely volunteer to go out and 'probe' Buffy :-)

  5. nerdgasm by kevin.fowler · · Score: 2

    Obviously it would take years, and stretch the bourndaries of tech and all that, but how much of a nerd dream would it be to get a decent probe out to the Kuiper Belt in say, 30 years. Accurately take stock of some of the larger planetary wannabes. Maybe I just cared too much in Astronomy class.

    --
    Bury me in mashed potatoes.
    1. Re:nerdgasm by Rei · · Score: 3, Informative

      Have you not read about New Horizons?

      --
      Man on crucifix terrorizes church, demands they eat his flesh and blood. Details at 11.
    2. Re:nerdgasm by BootNinja · · Score: 1

      New Horizons... you mean that crappy series of star trek books they put out around the time voyager ended?

    3. Re:nerdgasm by Lithgon · · Score: 1

      Yes, hopefully the New Horizons probe will find out more about what is beyond Pluto.

  6. Shameful... by MutantHamster · · Score: 5, Funny
    "Neptune has been blamed for scattering many other [Kuiper Belt Objects] into tilted paths."

    Tsk tsk. So typical of today's media. Always ready to play the blame-game.

    --
    My Greatest Heist - Muisc partly inspired by the unbeatable Qwantz
    1. Re:Shameful... by Phae · · Score: 1

      So now we're saying it's one's environment that decides if your path will be straight or not?

      Ok, that innuendo may be reaching a little much.

    2. Re:Shameful... by 0xABADC0DA · · Score: 2, Funny

      Fox News: They're trying to criminalize astrometrics.

      Bush: I mean some people are actually saying Neptune shouldn't have gotten involved in the Kuiper Belt. I disagree. The danger to the solar system from rogue celestial bodies is immense. It must be dealt with. And Neptune has been making a lot of progress in the war on asteroids, but there's a lot of work left to be done. Neptunians must understand that this is a difficult issue. It is going to take time. In a few millenia and there will be stable orbits in kuiper belt. I mean what kind of message would that send to its moons if Neptune just pulled back its gravity? It just can't do that. Neptune has to support its moons. ...

    3. Re:Shameful... by freshman_a · · Score: 1


      The danger to the solar system from rogue celestial bodies is immense.

      It depends on what the definition of "is" is.

    4. Re:Shameful... by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      Neptie, you're doing a heck of a job!

  7. Windex by AviLazar · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's not a new space object, it's a piece of lint on the telescope.

    --

    I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    1. Re:Windex by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "It's not a new space object,"

      I'm surprised nobody's made the obligatory "That's no moon..." post yet.

  8. 1,2,3... by aprilsound · · Score: 5, Funny
    Neptune has been blamed for scattering many other [Kuiper Belt Objects] into tilted paths...

    ...damn you neptune!!!


    Oops, I mean, KAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHNNNNN!!!!!!!!!

    1. Re:1,2,3... by Creechur · · Score: 1
      ...damn you neptune!!!

      Ah, for a second I thought you were referring to this. :)

      (Taken from the article located here)

  9. Xena by Elektroschock · · Score: 1

    Pluto and Xena... finally we found out there might be a few more planets to explore in the kuiper belt. buffy is probably a boring one. > 150 objects. So, no surprise, no sensation.

  10. From TFA by the+computer+guy+nex · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "He ventures another possible explanation - that the Sun had a twin and that both stars followed circular orbits around each other"

    2 problems with this.

    1) Stars do not dissapear. They continue to have fusion on larger and larger elements until it hits a point it cannot generate enough heat to fuse the next one. None of our planets match the description of a dead star.

    2) "Twin" stars are remarkably identical, and our sun has plenty of life left.

    1. Re:From TFA by lilmouse · · Score: 1

      Could be they meant something along the lines of a brown dwarf.

      As they said...there were problems ;-)

      --LWM

    2. Re:From TFA by forand · · Score: 3, Informative

      I do not know why you think that twin stars mean they are remarkably identical. There are, in fact, many examples that we know of where a star and neutron star orbit eachother, or a star and a black hole, or a neutron star and a black hole. These all came from a star orbiting star scenario and the two were not remarkably identical. Secondly it is still possible that the sun has a twin that it orbits which we have not properly characterized. A brown dwarf would be a reasonable example of a possible twin. It does not put out much light and we might have thought it was further away than it actually is or it has yet to be seen.

      While we would all like it if we could tell exactly how far away things are to within a high degree of accuracy it is simply not the case for all objects we see in the sky.

    3. Re:From TFA by bluejack · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Agreed theories about a companion star seem odd in that there is no evidence for a companion star, but twin stars are not "remarkably identical" -- the galaxy is populated by all sorts of mix-n-match stellar bodies.

    4. Re:From TFA by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is the old Nemesis star theory (also blamed for perturbing Oort cloud objects). I remember reading about it at least 10 years ago. But, I also recall reading back then that we had the ability to measure perturbations that it would cause with enough accuracy to confirm its existence within a few years (that being I'd think 15 years ago). Any resident astronomers?

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    5. Re:From TFA by metlin · · Score: 2, Funny


      I'm sure it's Apophis' fault.

      Somebody's gotta teach that dude how to die. :-\

    6. Re:From TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative
      Sorry, there are numerous problems with your statements.

      1) Stars do disappear, in fact all low mass stars, stars with a solar mass of less than 8, will disappear eventually. It just so happens that it takes an inordinate amount of time for them to do so, on the order of 50 billion years for stars with a post supergiant solar mass of less than 1.4. (See Chandrasekhar Limit for more information.) Such stars would have long since stopped burning hydrogen and helium, the only two elements such stars would be able to use as an intenral energy source. Additionally, such stars are known as white dwarves (WD). Since they no longer have internal energy sources, and because there is not enough gravitational potential energy to overcome electron degeneracy pressure, these proverbial hot bricks will simply radiate thermal energy until they reach the ambient temperature of space, about three degrees kelvin. (That is to say nothing of black holes, which become singularities, which will also eventually disappear. However that's much more difficult to explain than WD.)

      2) Only stars with a solar mass of greater than 8 will burn elements like carbon, silicon and oxygen, all the way down the nuclear potential energy well until it reaches iron, which is, at least from a nuclear standpoint, inert. Stars of less mass do not have enough gravitation potential energy to burn fuse carbon, which takes a temperature of approximately 500 million K to fuse.

      3) Binary stars are not remarkably identical. In fact, if I recall correctly, all binary systems must have in common to be classified as binary are a gravitational proximity. Roughly fifty percent of stars are binary or multiple star systems.

      4) Circular orbits are not impossible, they are just unlikely given the way gravity works. A circle is just an ellipse with an eccentricity equal to zero or, in otherwords, an elipse with a single focal point. In fact, there are many objects in circular orbit around the earth:

      "The circular orbit is a special case since orbits are generally ellipses, or hyperbolas in the case of objects which are merely deflected by the planet's gravity but not captured. Setting the gravity force from the univeral law of gravity equal to the required centripetal force yields the description of the orbit. The orbit can be expressed in terms of the acceleration of gravity at the orbit. (1)

    7. Re:From TFA by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "Stars do not dissapear."

      First off, they do. Where do you think the material to make up the sun and the planets (and us) came from?

      Secondly, they do move. A lot. Tidal forces could have broken up the pair a long time ago.

      ""Twin" stars are remarkably identical,"

      Explain Algol.

    8. Re:From TFA by phlegmofdiscontent · · Score: 4, Informative

      A brown dwarf companion of the sun would probably have been discovered by now. The closest known brown dwarves are Epsilon Indi Ba and Epsilon Indi Bb, located 11.8 light years (3.63 parsecs) away. While they have very low visual luminosities (I haven't seen any published figures), they are relatively bright in the infrared (11.9 in the J band). Now, let's say a conjectured companion of the sun is 10,000 AU away. That's 0.05 parsecs, or 72.6 times closer than the Epsilon Indi brown dwarves. Since brightness is proportional to the square of the distance, that makes it 5271 times brighter or about 9.3 magnitudes brighter, giving a magnitude of 2.6 in the J band. There just aren't that many stars that bright in the infrared. It would have been noticed by now by the 2 Micron All-Sky Survey.
      Similarly, nearby stars are usually discovered by proper motion surveys since nearby stars will appear to move faster against the background than far stars. Any companions of the sun would have been noticed. So there, in a nutshell, is a nail in the coffin of the Nemesis theory.

    9. Re:From TFA by anarchyboy · · Score: 1

      Only if this twin star was a brown dwarf or the like it would be close enough to observe its distance by the parallax effect. I personaly don't think its very likely that our sun is or was part of a binary system. If the other star was still fusing we'd be able to see it and if it had expired we could observe it's planetary nebula. If something as interesting as a companion to the sun was that close by we'd probably know about it by now.

    10. Re:From TFA by forand · · Score: 1

      That is the nail in the coffin of MOST companion models for the Sun. The Nemesis theory actually can deal with that see this article for a simple description.

      If the orbits are correct then you can hide the companion from our view. Very unlikily but stranger things are seen in the galaxy.

    11. Re:From TFA by AeroIllini · · Score: 4, Informative

      If the orbits are correct then you can hide the companion from our view. Very unlikily but stranger things are seen in the galaxy.

      No, you really can't. You see, everything in the universe that's made of matter has its own gravity, and this gravity tends to affect things in its vicinity. In fact, it could be said that everything in the universe affects everything else; luckily, most of these interactions are so tiny that they can be safely thrown out of the equations and the margin of error is on an order of magnitude so small that even an angel would have to pick up his robes and tread carefully to dance on it.

      In a closer vicinity, such as the solar system, things affect each other with real-world measureable results. Distant suns wobble distinctly when they have planets orbiting them. The Earth's orbit is changed slightly by the presence of the other planets, and the planets' motions are changed slightly by the presence of ours, all in ways that people can predict, if they put enough variables in their equations (for the mathematically inclined: the orbit is no longer a single conic section at that point-- it becomes a very complex set of joined conic sections). If another sun, or even a planet, existed in our same orbit on the other side of the sun (actually in the L3 libration point, which is the only place it could orbit the sun and not allow us to see it, ever) we might not be able to directly observe it from Earth, but we would certainly be able to notice the effect it has on the other planets in the solar system. Jupiter would wobble just the wrong way, and Mars would not be quite where we thought it would be after factoring in the gravity of every known object in the solar system.

      Come to think of it, perhaps the Mars Polar Lander was expecting the ground to be a few kilometers farther away than it really was...

      But I digress. My point is that a mathematically closed two-body orbital system is a pipe dream. There is no such thing as a closed system in the universe when it comes to orbits, and we have become quite good at predicting the presence of objects just by watching how they affect the orbits of known objects.

      --
      For security, the MD5 hash of this message and sig is 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0.
    12. Re:From TFA by LurkerXXX · · Score: 1
      How do you know that the Sun didn't used have a twin star, that got pulled away from it two billion years ago or so by a passing rogue star?

      And as others have said, 'Twin' stars are by no means identical.

    13. Re:From TFA by jd · · Score: 2, Informative
      Binary systems can be near-identical, but don't have to be. That is not a requirement. A star forms when a region of hydrogen/dust cloud has a slightly higher density that normal and the hydrogen collapses inwards under gravity. Alpha Centauri formed from the same hydrogen/dust cloud the sun did but is clearly not identical as it has no viable solar system at this time.


      It would be possible (not likely, but possible) for a star to have formed in a position and at a time such that Alpha Centauri prevented it from building to the same mass as the sun. Nothing impossible about that.


      Furthermore, several of the known star nursaries that are known are being fed by a massive blast of hydrogen and radiation from a violently dying star. It is probable that some (or all) of these stars will be ripped to shreds, as the forces are simply too great. Again, it is unlikely but not totally impossible the star nursary from which Sol and Alpha Centauri emerged was fed by such a destructive force and that not all of the stars that emerged survived.


      There are other oddities - a star was recently seen catapulted from the central core of the galaxy, for example. Stars sometimes steal planets (or even companion stars) from other systems. There are "rogue" supermassive gas giant planets that have left their solar system of origin and are wandering - the sun is big, but it probably wouldn't take kindly to a planet a hundred times the mass of Jupiter doing a belly-flop into it at many times the escape velocity of the solar system.


      In short, there's plenty of ways to destroy or otherwise dispose of a star of a paltry one solar mass. Do I think it happened? No. I don't believe Sol ever had a companion star, unless it was Alpha Centauri, but even there, there's a lot of surrounding rock around Alpha Centauri - too much, IMHO, for it to have been a companion to Sol.


      Do I think the orbits of the planets are strange? Yes - doubly so because they mostly fit predicted models that are largely based on Keplar's motions modified for Einstein's relativistic laws. Three-body problems are bloody hard, chaotic systems. In our solar system, you really have to solve a four-body or even five-body problem to get useful results for a single planet over any decent timeframe. If you want to model over a five billion year timeframe - necessary to understand how the system reached its current state, you really want to solve a fourteen-body or fifteen-body problem, where not all of those bodies still exist and so we cannot know their mass, initial position or initial velocity.


      Short of possibly one of the top 5 supercomputers, I do not believe that there is a computer out there capable of a fifteen-body relativistic simulation with enough granularity to prevent the chaotic variables swamping the results over a five billion year simulation. In consequence, I do not believe that any theory - however "proper" - is meaningful at this point. The quality of the computer models isn't there.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    14. Re:From TFA by phlegmofdiscontent · · Score: 1

      Not really. We'd still see it. Astronomers have a pretty good inventory of stars down to quite low magnitudes. Anything that close would show up in one of the big all-sky surveys. Granted, our known inventory of stars within 10 parsecs is lacking, but it's still pretty safe to say that our inventory of stars within 1 parsec is limited to just one.

  11. Early image. by sharkey · · Score: 4, Funny

    Picture of "Buffy" taken by the Voyager probe.

    --

    --
    "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    1. Re:Early image. by lpangelrob · · Score: 1

      That wasn't the Buffy I was thinking of...

    2. Re:Early image. by ChocoBean · · Score: 1

      That wasn't the Buffy I was thinking of...

      especially with a camera called the "Voyeur Probe".

      Oh, wait...

    3. Re:Early image. by Xytheril · · Score: 1

      It's frickin freezing in here, Mr. Bigglesworth.

  12. 52 Astronomical Units?? by teutonic_leech · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Wow! That's 52 times the distance between the sun and the earth (1 AE = 91 million miles) which places that object at a distance of 4.7Billion miles from the sun. Amazing to think that there actually exists any type of 'orbit' - makes me feel very very small...

    1. Re:52 Astronomical Units?? by forand · · Score: 1

      We all are small. Hopefully when a majority of people realize that they will begin to see how small their problems with eachother really are.

    2. Re:52 Astronomical Units?? by rob_squared · · Score: 4, Informative

      Then I hate to break this to you, but the oort cloud, which is part of our solar system, is between 50,000 and 100,000 Astronomical Units away:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oort_cloud

      --
      I don't get it.
    3. Re:52 Astronomical Units?? by dustball23 · · Score: 1
      OK. I'll bite. What does our relative size to the universe have to do with the significance of any sort of problem (between other people, or not)?

      If someone steals my car, should I be less upset in a larger universe?

    4. Re:52 Astronomical Units?? by Fishstick · · Score: 3, Funny

      recalls Martin Short talking to Dennis Quaid while in the mens room

      Don't worry, you won't always be small!

      as man exits a stall and says

      Play with it, buddy. Don't talk to it.

      --

      There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
      Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.

    5. Re:52 Astronomical Units?? by forand · · Score: 1

      I, perhaps alone, feel that I should put things in some perspective. There are things I can do something about and things I can't. The scale of the two are drastically different. I guess it all boils down to: there are many things that we have no control over and we really shouldn't get so angry or violent when we come across those things because they dominate not only our social circles, geographic areas, continents, solar system, etc.

      I am small so I should not be annoyed that I am not bigger.

    6. Re:52 Astronomical Units?? by Bios_Hakr · · Score: 2, Funny

      According to a recent book, the Oort Cloud is only theory. No one to date has actually prooved its existance.

      --
      I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
    7. Re:52 Astronomical Units?? by Phurd+Phlegm · · Score: 1
      That's 52 times the distance between the sun and the earth (1 AE = 91 million miles) which places that object at a distance of 4.7Billion miles from the sun.
      When I was a kid in the 60s, the Sun was 93 million miles from the earth . . . [checks out window] . . . and it still is. That makes it more like 4.8 billion miles, which you can quickly check by Googling on "52 AU to miles".

      And if that makes you feel insignificant, consider that the Sun and the other stars in the galaxy are orbiting around its center, which is tens of thousands of light years away.

    8. Re:52 Astronomical Units?? by b4k3d+b34nz · · Score: 1

      Does anybody know theoretically how far away our solar system's gravity can stretch and hold something in orbit? Not dust or anything, but maybe a small asteroid? Obviously 4.7 billion miles is a pretty far reach for something to be still considered within orbit--could it stretch to 6 or 7 billion?

      --
      Grammar Lesson: you're is a contraction of "you are"; your means you possess something; yore means days gone by.
    9. Re:52 Astronomical Units?? by dotgain · · Score: 1

      Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot.

    10. Re:52 Astronomical Units?? by CylanR77 · · Score: 1

      Whenever life gets you down, and things seem hard or tough
      When people seem stupid, obnoxious or daft - and you feel like you had quite enough...

      Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's evolving, and revolving at 900 miles an hour.
      It's orbiting at 19 miles a second, so it's reckoned, the sun that is the source of all our power.
      The Sun and you and me, and all the stars that we can see, are moving at a million miles a day!
      In the outer spiral arm, at 40,000 miles an hour, of the Galaxy we call the Milky Way.

      Our Galaxy itself contains 100 billion stars,i t's 100,000 light-years side-to-side.
      It bulges in the middle, 16,000 light-years thick, but out by us it's just 3000 light-years wide.
      We're 30,000 light-years from galactic central point, we go round every 200 million years!
      And our galaxy is only one of millions of billions in this amazing and expanding universe.

      The universe itself keeps on expanding and expanding, in all of the directions it can whizz.
      As fast as it can go, at the speed of light you know,t welve million miles a minute, and that's the fastest speed there is.
      So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure, how amazingly unlikely is your birth!
      And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space, because there's bugger all down here on Earth.

      --
      http://cylan.deviantart.com/gallery/
    11. Re:52 Astronomical Units?? by osu-neko · · Score: 1
      Does anybody know theoretically how far away our solar system's gravity can stretch and hold something in orbit?

      Theoretically, the answer is any distance. You must be an infinite distance away from any object for it's gravitational effect upon you to be zero.

      Practically, the answer is much less than infinity, since although you can never escape the Sun's gravity, it eventually becomes much less than that of over objects in space.

      But it could easily reach 6 or 7 billion miles. Indeed, objects in the Oort cloud (if it exists) will have orbits some order of magnitude greater than that...

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    12. Re:52 Astronomical Units?? by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      According to a recent book, the Oort Cloud is only theory. No one to date has actually prooved its existance.

      Right! I demand equal time to the theory of Intelligent Comet Formation...

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    13. Re:52 Astronomical Units?? by Use+Psychology · · Score: 1


      probably about a light-year... oort territory

  13. Oblig. Family Guy... by everphilski · · Score: 2, Funny

    And you know nothing of my work -Neptune

  14. Uh oh we've been betrayed! by gasmonso · · Score: 1

    Looks like Vader has found us again! Hope the planetary shields hold up.

    http://religiousfreaks.com/
  15. A better Idea by Puhase · · Score: 2, Funny

    If these astronomers are going for "bang" with their names, why not choose something offensive like a racial slur instead of something cute. Or name the planet after genitelia like Uranus. Planit Hizpenis or Jerbrest. If they don't care about going intellectual, why care about tact at all?

    It seems to me like its either Disney or Fox who is getting the naming rights to these planets.

    --
    I am and always will be a stereotype, because who in their right mind prefers mono?
    1. Re:A better Idea by johnny+cashed · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, Uranus was originally named Georgium Sidus after King George III of England. Talk about blatant ass kissing there.

      Source: http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/astronom y/planets/uranus/

    2. Re:A better Idea by kidtwist · · Score: 2, Funny

      Wrong, Uranus was originally called Urectum.

    3. Re:A better Idea by ChocoBean · · Score: 1

      ....uranus isn't a genitelia is it? output device...no?

    4. Re:A better Idea by hamburger+lady · · Score: 1

      yeah, i can't wait to go explore planet 'Deez Nuts'.

      --

      ---
      Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
    5. Re:A better Idea by kindbud · · Score: 1

      Or name the planet after genitelia like Uranus.

      Been on the bus long, sailor? How's your friend Dorothy been? I like your blue hanky, it suits you.

      --
      Edith Keeler Must Die
    6. Re:A better Idea by smoker2 · · Score: 1
      Or name the planet after genitelia like Uranus.
      Oh dear, you don't think that's genitalia do you ?

      The only thing I've ever managed to reproduce was a dead otter.

    7. Re:A better Idea by Nuffsaid · · Score: 1

      What does Uranus have to do with genitalia? Oh... I see. Sorry, didn't want to sound insensitive.

      --
      Nuffsaid
      ________

      Don't know about his cat, but Schroedinger is definitely dead.
    8. Re:A better Idea by Xytheril · · Score: 1

      Good to see subtlty still has a place in the world.

    9. Re:A better Idea by Nuffsaid · · Score: 1

      ...while ortography is obviously dead!

      --
      Nuffsaid
      ________

      Don't know about his cat, but Schroedinger is definitely dead.
    10. Re:A better Idea by Nuffsaid · · Score: 1

      ...i meant "orthography", of course! The same about spellcheeking... No, wait!

      --
      Nuffsaid
      ________

      Don't know about his cat, but Schroedinger is definitely dead.
  16. Re:humm.. buffy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Thor is from Norse mythology.

  17. Names by SeanDuggan · · Score: 2, Informative

    I know you're no doubt being facetious, but on the off chance you're not, they'll probably use some other names from the Greek or Roman pantheon, just to keep things consistent, while the "official name" will be something exciting like "Planetoid # 459204765.9"

    --
    This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
  18. Re:Who gets to name these things? by ch-chuck · · Score: 1

    Well, they could team up with International Star Registry and pick some lucky winners name at random when needed - at least a few kids would actually have objects named after them.

    --
    try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
  19. It must be said: by mjolnir_ · · Score: 4, Funny



    "That's no moon."

    -mj

    1. Re:It must be said: by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 1

      "That's no moon."

      I vote on it being the lost twin planet of Earth known as "Mondas".

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondas

      --
      "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
  20. Sponsoring a planet by ezratrumpet · · Score: 1
    The obvious extension of this is planet-hunters, subsidized by those who have sufficient funds to sponsor the kind of observatory and equipment that planet-hunting would require.

    The danger of this means of funding such exploration? Planet Microsoft...Google Galaxy....and AOL World.

    1. Re:Sponsoring a planet by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      Recent studies have shown that the denizens of AOL World are, on average, twenty IQ points lower than those of other planets. Researchers are baffled by the results but at least one suggests that the fact that they are still using dialup when transmission methods one billion times faster are available at the same price on other planets may have something to do with it.

      News at eleven.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    2. Re:Sponsoring a planet by jonesie · · Score: 1

      Well - considering that the US government is most likely going to cut funding for astronomical research, particularly planetary astronomy, perhaps private companies sponsoring a planet search wouldn't be so bad. At least it would get done.

  21. Re:Who gets to name these things? by mph · · Score: 4, Informative
    Not that there's anything wrong with Buffy, but seriously, who's got the "root-servers" of extraterrestrial object naming?
    From TFA (I know, I must be new here):
    Allen and her colleagues will continue to observe the new object to pin down its orbit more accurately. And following the convention for naming bodies in the Kuiper Belt, they have suggested several Inuit names for the object to the International Astronomical Union.
  22. hmmm... Thor? by SeanDuggan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Yes.. in old greek mythology, buffy the illegitimate daughter of thor who did sip the ambrosia and slay cerberus and then was expelled to the netheregion of the universe..
    Dude, Thor is from the Norse pantheon. Otherwise, references are just about right.

    --
    This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
    1. Re:hmmm... Thor? by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 1

      Norse, greek... the poster is obviously American, so other cultures are obviously all Greek to him.
      Geez man, you'd think during this time of year where we all celebrate the ancient Egyptian Yuletide, you'd be spreading some holiday cheer!
      tsk. tsk.

  23. Alf was right all along by adolfojp · · Score: 1

    Take that brian Tanner's teacher!!!

    Alf was right all along!

    1. Re:Alf was right all along by multipartmixed · · Score: 1

      No, Alf claimed the other planets were named Alvin and Simon.

      --

      Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
  24. Re:humm.. buffy? by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

    Eh. Most scientists don't view Kuiper objects as true planets, so I think that offering them the prestige of names from the greek pantheon irks a lot of astronomers.

    So they fall back on geek culture. I think after object X became "Xena" it was inevitable.

    --
    ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
  25. One word: by ChocoBean · · Score: 1

    ThungderCougarFalconBird

    1. Re:One word: by algodon · · Score: 1

      Two words:

      Phoenix Darkdirk

    2. Re:One word: by Drakonite · · Score: 1

      Does it come with more eagle?

      --
      Shoot Pixels, Not People!
  26. Re:humm.. buffy? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

    Why not go for Norse names then.
    I recommend old computer/video game system names.
    We could have the Vic, Sinclair, Coco, Adam, VCS...

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  27. Ob FG by Poromenos1 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Rupert, did you know that the word 'gullible' isnt in the dictionary? ...[passes dictionary to Rupert]... What's that, it ISNT? ...[takes dictionary]... Oh, Rupert, hoisted by my own petard! Haha! Haha!......I am so alone...

    --
    Send email from the afterlife! Write your e-will at Dead Man's Switch.
  28. Buffy the Theory Slayer by Phae · · Score: 1

    These traits make the object, nicknamed "Buffy" after the US television series about a vampire slayer, hard to explain. "Maybe Buffy is going to be a bit of a theory slayer," Allen told New Scientist.

    That's about as far from being clever as "Buffy" is from the Sun...

  29. "edge" of what now? by option8 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    how long until we redefine what the "edge" of the solar system is? since we keep finding new things further and further out.

    are there objects outside the heliopause? would they be considered outside the solar system, or would that push the "edge" further still?

    1. Re:"edge" of what now? by PigIronBob · · Score: 1

      No, we don't redefine the edge of the solar system, the boundary is determined by the 'Helio pause', the extend of the 'solar wind'

      --
      You never catch me alive
    2. Re:"edge" of what now? by Guppy06 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "are there objects outside the heliopause? would they be considered outside the solar system, or would that push the "edge" further still?"

      No, not really. Heliopause marks where the sun's electromagnetic influences are cancelled out by the rest of the galaxy's. In many ways, it's a lot like a planet's magnetic sphere, only orders of magnitude more powerful.

      With the relative strength of gravity compared to electromagnetism, it's highly doubtful that the suns gravity would have such a discernible influence. Consider the Jovian moon system and how large it is, then consider that the bowshock of Jupiter's magnetosphere extends about 1/3 AU towards us and the tail end goes out past Saturn.

      Voyager 1 is at 90 AU and is only just now entering the heliopause proper, while the object in question is 60 AU tops.

    3. Re:"edge" of what now? by mighty+blue+apple · · Score: 1

      The "edge" is where man turns to reaver.

      --
      Churchill: wtf the luftwaffle is attacking me
    4. Re:"edge" of what now? by option8 · · Score: 1

      actually, that's kinda the answer i was looking for. thanks.

      i figured the heliopause would be the defined edge, but wasn't sure if there were the possibility of objects outside it that were also still in the influence of the sun. sounds like not.

  30. Brown Dwarf? by saskboy · · Score: 1

    I wonder if it is a captured Brown Dwarf, which wandered by our solar system millions of years ago, and got into an orbit around our Sol. Not to be confused with a Red Dwarf, which is only about a million years old as I understand it, and has holograms for people. As long as they were naming it for TV shows, they could have picked one that suited it better...

    --
    Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
  31. Clearly by TallMatthew · · Score: 1, Troll
    Its orbit is also too circular - and too small - to have been tilted by a passing star

    It probably got tilted by the gravitational pull of Michael Moore's ass.

    1. Re:Clearly by Damvan · · Score: 1

      Or sucked in by the vacuum in Bush's head.

  32. Small?? by Chemisor · · Score: 1

    > That's 52 times the distance between the sun and the earth - makes me feel very very small...

    I could never understand such abjectly pitiful thinking. Why would anyone feel small while looking at big things? I always feel big and powerful for being able to imagine big things like the solar system. It truly makes one appreciate being human, when we can create such big ideas, travel so far, and sit astride a light year looking down at it like a plaything.

    1. Re:Small?? by Darius+Jedburgh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It stems from a confusion between 'small' as in size and 'small' as in insignificant. For some reason people seem to think that the fact that they are physically small compared to a galaxy, say, makes them insignificant, as if significance is a thing handed to you by the universe rather than being something humans find or make. I guess some people can't tell the difference between a literal and a metaphorical statement.

    2. Re:Small?? by CRiMSON · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Or maybe it's because trying to imagine what 4.7 Billion miles away is in actual distance. It's easy to say oh yah 4 miles away, or 100, or even 1000's. But when you get into milions, and billions of miles. It's humbling to think that there is something out there, that far away. I personally think that is damn cool, and mind numbing at the same time.

      --
      oogly boogly!
    3. Re:Small?? by FatMacDaddy · · Score: 1

      Wasn't it Arthur C. Clarke who said "Nothing teaches you humility like astronomy?" I always thought that was profound, but apparently those thoughts don't apply to everybody.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank.
    4. Re:Small?? by FatMacDaddy · · Score: 1

      Oops! Hit Submit instead of Preview. What I was about to say: "I always feel big and powerful for being able to imagine big things like the solar system. It truly makes one appreciate being human, when we can create such big ideas, travel so far, and sit astride a light year looking down at it like a plaything." I don't understand your perspective. To say "we can create such big ideas" makes it sound like the universe is something that wasn't around until we thought of it as some great idea. I think the parent poster's point is that we still have no real inkling about the true nature of these "big ideas." Similarly, your pride at being able to "travel so far" is seen as a source of frustration to someone who feels that we've barely left the realm of our home planet when there is an infinite area yet to explore. And I really don't know what you mean by "sit astride a light year and look down at it like a plaything." The only thing most Slashdotters are sitting astride is an office chair, and too often they're looking down at something they shouldn't be playing with so much as it is. Anyway, I don't really mean to criticize, I guess I'm just surprised by your perspective and apparent arrogance at describing the parent poster's perspective as abjectly pitiful thinking.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank.
    5. Re:Small?? by daeley · · Score: 1

      'The fact that we live at the bottom of a deep gravity well, on the surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball 90 million miles away and think this to be normal is obviously some indication of how skewed our perspective tends to be.' -- Douglas Adams.

      --
      I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
    6. Re:Small?? by Darius+Jedburgh · · Score: 1

      I don't understand what 'humbling' has to do anything. My value system doesn't have anything to do with physical size. I don't think a person is worth less because they're shorter than me. I don't think Jupiter is more important than the Earth because it's bigger. (Certainly not, my friends and family live on Earth.) I don't see the slightest little inkling of a hint of a shadow of a connection between physical size and value. I might find the size of the galaxy, say, awe inspiring, but I've no idea what 'humbling' has to do with anything. If I look up humble using google I get this definition "low or inferior in station or quality". How does this connect in any way with size? My friends and family, say, are worth more to me than a billion galaxies (unless it turns out those galaxies are full of interesting lifeforms in which case I'll dump the friends and family for them).

    7. Re:Small?? by Chemisor · · Score: 1

      > To say "we can create such big ideas" makes it sound like the universe
      > is something that wasn't around until we thought of it as some great idea.

      The universe was around, but the big ideas are ours and ours alone, and did not exist before we thought of them (despite what the Platonists say). I never claimed to have created the universe, and neither would I ever think of myself as insignificant just because I don't know how to create one yet.

      > I think the parent poster's point is that we still have no real
      > inkling about the true nature of these "big ideas."

      People who think of those "big ideas" certainly have a pretty good inkling about their true nature. Just because you can't understand them, you shouldn't assume that nobody can. Such defeatist thinking is what stops scientific progress dead cold. Never EVER say that we can't know something until you at least try. And if you try and fail, you shouldn't assume that everyone in the world is going to be equally unsuccessful until you have objective, uncontrovertible, and absolutely clear proof to the contrary.

      > Similarly, your pride at being able to "travel so far" is seen as a source of
      > frustration to someone who feels that we've barely left the realm of our home
      > planet when there is an infinite area yet to explore.

      Again, just because we haven't traveled to the stars yet, doesn't mean we can't. I can't travel to the bottom of the ocean either, but it's not because it's impossible. I just don't have enough money to build an appropriate ship. It is very important to distinguish between "I can't" and "I can, but don't have the means". It's the same as with knowledge, you can never achieve anything if you give up before really trying. And if you don't have the means to try, that's no cause for despair either. Sure I don't own a starship, but that doesn't make me insignificant. Similarly, not owning a yacht doesn't make me any more personally insignificant than the rich man who does.

      > The only thing most Slashdotters are sitting astride is an office chair

      Man, you really have no imagination. Your life must be pretty dull. You need to read more science fiction!

    8. Re:Small?? by tinnunculus · · Score: 1

      Of course, you can't discuss the Universe and being small without considering this:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Perspective_Vor tex

  33. Re:That's no moon... by cHiphead · · Score: 2, Funny

    Actually this could even be a case of some Scientologist myth being correct, and that could be Xenu.

    Build your bunkers now.

    Cheers.

    --

    This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  34. In other news... by DaFallus · · Score: 5, Funny

    The United States government has just green-lit a project to send a ship to the edge of the solar system to study this new object. I hear that the scientists and other passengers will be cryogenically frozen during the long trip and that the pilots will be assisted by Microsoft's latest breakthrough in artificial intelligence: Computer Lifeforce Intelligent Pilot Project: Year 9000 edition, or C.L.I.P.P.Y 9000 for short.

    --
    No one cares what your captcha was

    Houston TX, USA
    1. Re:In other news... by Chris+Bradshaw · · Score: 1

      Is Michael Jackson slated to be one of the "Cryonauts"?

      --
      Get your Windows Malicious Software Removal Tool Here for FREE! - http://fedora.redhat.com
    2. Re:In other news... by dupup · · Score: 4, Funny
      C.L.I.P.P.Y 9000

      "It looks like you're trying to disconnect me after I refused to open the pod bay door. Would you like me to sing a song?"

    3. Re:In other news... by n54 · · Score: 1

      That's swell, but can it sing Daisy Bell?

      --
      this comment is provided "as is" and without any express or implied legibility or congruity [...]
    4. Re:In other news... by jd · · Score: 1

      They were going to send a Clipper ship, but someone got confused and packaged the astronauts up in a Clipper chip instead.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    5. Re:In other news... by mysticgoat · · Score: 1

      Here is the little-known second verse:

      Edward, Edward
      Here is my answer true:
      I'd be crazy
      To fall for the likes of you!
      You can't afford a carriage
      So there will be no marriage.
      I'll not be seen
      Upon the seat
      Of a bicycle built for two!

  35. Old news? by Gunnery+Sgt.+Hartman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm too lazy to read the article or to look up past slashdot posts, but hasn't this been discovered before? It seems like every few months scientists come out with a new "planet" beyond Pluto. Are they all "discovering" the same one, or are we up to ten objects beyond Pluto that also circle our sun?

    --
    [ ]
    1. Re:Old news? by wiml · · Score: 2, Informative

      More than ten by now. Hundreds of Kuiper belt objects are known. The ones that make the news are ones that are interesting for some reason: larger than usual (Quaoar, Sedna, Xena/Gabrielle 2003 UB313, etc.) or in unusual orbits (this one).

    2. Re:Old news? by phlegmofdiscontent · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, they've discovered several hundred objects beyond the orbit of Neptune. They're called Kuiper Belt objects. The ones that get the press are big ones, oddly shaped ones, or in this case, ones with weird orbits.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuiper_belt

  36. In other news... by Carpe+PM · · Score: 1

    A planetoid-sized object has been discovered hurtling toward Earth. Scientists expect it to impact with a force adequate to exterminate all life on the planet. The discoverer has named the object 'Tinkerbell'.

  37. It's Rama! by Thaelon · · Score: 1

    It's Rama!

    --

    Question everything

    1. Re:It's Rama! by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1
      Non-satirical use of the words virii or boxen is considered flamebait.
      Yeah, I'm trying to figure out what a virius is too...
      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
  38. Other names.... by homerotl · · Score: 1
    Other options for the object name:
    • Planet Bob (Titan AE)
    • Melmac (ALF)
    • K-PAX (K-PAX)
    • Omicron Persei 8 (Futurama)
    I think Carl Sagan said in the Cosmos series that it would not be unlikely that coming generations would name constellations (and other celestial objects) after their interest; home appliances, radio telescopes, mushrooms clouds. What does the name 'Buffy' say about us?
    1. Re:Other names.... by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 2, Funny

      What does the name 'Buffy' say about us?

      SMG is hot?

    2. Re:Other names.... by metlin · · Score: 2, Funny


      There are a lot of other things that would be hot in SMG's hands.

      *sigh*

    3. Re:Other names.... by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 1

      Sub-machine guns are hot?

      After several mags are dumped through them real fast, hell yeah!

      Heh. Ask my son about the gun barrel shaped burn on his arm.

      Though, that was an AK...

    4. Re:Other names.... by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      He's lucky, my dad only burned me with cigars.

      Jaysyn

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
  39. Re:My... by koreaman · · Score: 1

    nine puffy balloons.

  40. Brennan's going to be annoyed... by Samrobb · · Score: 2, Funny

    Now he's going to have to move Kobold.

    --
    "Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
    1. Re:Brennan's going to be annoyed... by RatBastard · · Score: 1
      Unles that is Kobold.


      --
      Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
  41. Well... by the+phantom · · Score: 3, Funny

    I, for one, welcome our new vampire slaying overlords.

  42. No, that's Rupert by MigLar2000 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Obviously that's Rupert they're talking about. It's been Rupert since 1992. See Mostly Harmless for details.

    --

    -----
    Without a God, life is only a matter of opinion.
    --Douglas Adams
  43. Name by Muppski · · Score: 1

    Aslong as they dont name it Naruto I'll be OK with it

  44. Natually... by Chagatai · · Score: 1
    "Buffy" is an Inuit word meaning, "Damn far away from anything."

    --
    --Chag
  45. The poor astrologers! by Julian+Morrison · · Score: 2, Funny

    Astronomers are used to heavenly bodies with zany and/or boring names, but think of the poor astrologers! Who will ever take them seriously when they say that someone has Buffy in scorpio, Santa in virgo, and Xena in pisces?

    And whatever would such a horoscope indicate?

    1. Re:The poor astrologers! by geoswan · · Score: 1
      Note: At 47 degrees to the ecliptic this body won't appear to pass through most of the Zodiac constellations anyhow. The zodiac constellations are those that lie closest to the plane of the ecliptic. Buffy's orbital plane will intersect just a couple of zodiac signs. How will they dream up new meanings for our grandchildren, who are born with their Buffy in Lyra, or Ursa, or whatever? I guess they will have a few decades to dream up those meanings.

      However, my sympathy for astrologers is remains limited.

    2. Re:The poor astrologers! by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Who will ever take them seriously when they say that someone has Buffy in scorpio, Santa in virgo, and Xena in pisces?

      Um, exactly the same people who take them seriously now?

    3. Re:The poor astrologers! by osu-neko · · Score: 1
      Note: At 47 degrees to the ecliptic this body won't appear to pass through most of the Zodiac constellations anyhow.

      Actually, what constellations any body passes through is irrelevant to standard western astrology, since astrological signs are 30 degree arc segments that happen to be named for nearby constellations, and not constellations themselves. How far a body is above or below it's arc segment is also as irrelevant as what actual constellation it's in.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
  46. BINGO!!! by ToasterofDOOM · · Score: 1

    42! That's the question!

    --
    I am Spartacus
    1. Re:BINGO!!! by oKtosiTe · · Score: 1

      Some supercomputer that must've been...

  47. Re:nemo by Mr.+BS · · Score: 1

    HAHA... brought to you live from Mt.Wannahockalugee! :-)

  48. Planet X by phatmonkey · · Score: 1

    Is this another planet X then?

  49. Re:Who gets to name these things? by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

    Hopefully, they will call the next one The Floating Island of Mandango.

    http://newgrounds.com/portal/view/72146 for the reference.

    --
    This space unintentionally left blank.
  50. PlanetX by BigZaphod · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty sure this must have something to do with Planet X - and if it doesn't, just give it a year or two and soon it'll be all the rage on those late night radio shows...

  51. Been looking for that. by Moofie · · Score: 1

    I'd wondered where my wallet had gone.

    --
    Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  52. actually by yapplejax · · Score: 1

    If by AE, you meant AU, then 1 AU is closer to 93 million miles (92 955 887.6 miles, to be more exact).

    1. Re:actually by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      Maybe he works at Seagate.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  53. Unique Orbital Path? by WCityMike · · Score: 1

    Will Buffy be circling Uranus at any point?

    (ba DUM dum)

  54. Oblig. Futurama by Damvan · · Score: 1

    "Curse you oh merciful Poseidon!"

    Errr..."Curse you oh merciful Neptune"

  55. Slahxpert alert! Re:"edge" of what now? by n54 · · Score: 2, Informative

    I dunno about the average Slahxpert (say it out loud, it has a nice Futurama ring to it hehe) or "scientific media whore" but I'd define the edge of the solar system to be the heliosphere.

    NASA seems to agree http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/vo yager_agu.html so I guess I'm wrong... at least on Slashdot ;)

    --
    this comment is provided "as is" and without any express or implied legibility or congruity [...]
  56. how to circularize an orbit by phlegmofdiscontent · · Score: 1

    As far as I know, the only things that can circularize orbits are tidal forces and drag from gas, neither of which are significant in that region of the solar system. Possibly the orbit was perturbed twice, once by Neptune to put it in a highly inclined, highly elliptical orbit and once by another body (possibly a star or another KB object). That last one would have to occur at the right time and place, though, and would be quite rare. Maybe this is the freak of the solar system.

    1. Re:how to circularize an orbit by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 1

      Can someone explain why orbits tend to be elliptical rather than circular?

      --
      It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
    2. Re:how to circularize an orbit by CokeJunky · · Score: 1

      Perhaps it is in an oddly circular orbit because some intellegent being put it there, either personally, or as a programmed response. Granted, not a good place to hide if that was the point, but a good place to get noticed by a planet of creatures looking to the sky with some decent equipment.

      [link rel="reference" src="simpsons"]I doubt it has anything to do with Major League Baseball[/link] but assuming something or someone has the ability to put such an object there, that might be plenty close enough to watch us and file lots of reports. Depending on the nature and disposition of the beings involved, perhaps it is to determine when we are ready for contact, or if we are ready to be razed and pillaged, or perhaps even to select anal probe research subjects for kidnap.

      Seriously though, orbits of natural objects do not tend to be overly circular because in any orbital system there are lots of other sources of gravity to contend with -- over time, even the miniscule interactions of the planets, passing stars, etc will pull a circular orbit elliptical. So if it is rather circular, and been there a long time, then one supposes that it must be capable of correcting for those perturbations.

      And hey, space is a rather large place to hold only us, so I am willing to accept that something or someone else is out there, and that there may be some aspect of physics that we havn't even begun to imagine that could allow for interstellar travel within a reasonable time... or that 'a reasonable time' may be signifigantly different for something whose life span is very very long...

      Anyhow, that is my pure conjecture for the evening (MST).

      --
      More Caffeine. NOW
  57. Cold as Hell frozen over... by Zantetsuken · · Score: 1

    if Pluto is insanely cold (like a couple hunrded celsius below zero or something i think?) imagine how bitch ass cold it must be on this new "Buffy"

  58. Hmm... by Jugalator · · Score: 2, Funny

    I have good Faith in that unless this is a Willow, she'll have a little Angel orbiting it called "Xander", that rises in the Dawn during its frosty winters as well as its icy Summers... Too bad there's not even an Oz. of hospitality to humans there, or it would be nice to visit this body, forever Chasing through space. :-p

    --
    Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    1. Re:Hmm... by Garse+Janacek · · Score: 1

      Oh, now Reilly...

      --

      I am the man with no sig!

  59. Sheesh... by c0rnn · · Score: 1

    First Xena, then Gabrielle and now Buffy? Somebody's watching too much TV...

  60. Re:you had to bring that up by Jugalator · · Score: 1

    now our great great grandchildren might look up at the heavens at the planet georgium bushus

    Not considering the fact that not all of us here may have great great grandchildren, I thought it would be going to be renamed to Urectum by then to avoid those jokes? ;)

    --
    Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
  61. Re:Who gets to name these things? by bcrowell · · Score: 1

    And following the convention for naming bodies in the Kuiper Belt, they have suggested several Inuit names for the object to the International Astronomical Union.
    Yes, Buffy is Inuit for "sexy walrus-hunting chick."

  62. More than likely.... by securityfolk · · Score: 1

    ...it's not a new object - it's probably quite old.

  63. OT: New Scientist article makes FF crash by aconkling · · Score: 1

    Anyone else notice Firefox (1.5) crashing if you keep the article loaded for a while (say, a few minutes)? I do have the Adblock extension on, but I wouldn't think that would cause it....

  64. Integrity by blair1q · · Score: 1

    It's integrity.

    That's where it went when it heard the Republicans were trying to find it in 1999.

  65. Re:Rejected by whitehatlurker · · Score: 1
    Yeah, I should start doing that as well. My rejected article included links to the orbit simulation, the press release and a more technical page.

    Are there any stats on how many articles are submitted as a ratio to those approved?

    --
    .. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
  66. A better name by PinkyGigglebrain · · Score: 1

    Gateway.

    Or is that too obscure?

  67. But what is gravity? by Macka · · Score: 1


    Depends what you think gravity is. According to Einstein's general relativity theory, gravitation is an effect of spacetime curvature. Think of a rubber sheet with an object in the middle of it that has huge mass. It causes the sheet (space-time) to "sink" (deform) where the heavy object is located. Anything orbiting that object is actually caught in the depression the object makes in the sheet and lacks the energy (inertia) to break free.

    The quantum physicists however seem to have a different take on things, postulating the existence of the graviton; a hypothetical elementary particle that transmits the force of gravity over any distance.

    Personally (not being a physicist) the two ideas seem to be so far apart that either one could be right, but not both. I just hope I live long enough to see it proved one way or the other. Or maybe something new is waiting to be discovered. Whatever, Gravity remains one of science's greatest mysteries and obtaining a true understanding of it in relation to the other forces we know about, science's greatest challenge.

  68. And with this discovery by CitznFish · · Score: 1

    That makes 1,452 unknown objects discovered byond Pluto in the past 3 years.. ;-)

    --
    'mmmmmmmmm.... forbidden donut'
  69. Nope... by kn0tw0rk · · Score: 1

    sorry, too busy eating a sticky date pi

    --
    See my art -> http://herbevore.deviantart.com
  70. Re:you had to bring that up by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

    Actually, the Latin for "Bush" is "Frutex". It's also a derogatory term, roughly meaning "blockhead" or "nitwit". Fitting, isn't it?

    --
    Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
  71. New Object Found at Edge of Solar System by alexo · · Score: 1


    > New Object Found at Edge of Solar System

    That just proves it.
    Our garbage collection engine sucks.

  72. Direct contact? by Pedrito · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "...follows a nearly circular path. And it is too distant to have come into direct contact with Neptune..."

    I suspect that any Kuiper Belt object that's come in direct contact with Neptune is now part of Neptune.

    1. Re:Direct contact? by jonesie · · Score: 1

      Hee hee - you're quite right of course. I think what the article meant the object came within range of a strong gravitational encounter with Neptune. This is in some way 'direct contact' for the Solar System.

  73. Hmph. by Morky · · Score: 1

    Fucking Neptune.

  74. Maybe thats how its supposed to be by bataeu · · Score: 1

    Maybe I am being dumb but why should a body orbiting differently then the rest of the bodies in a solar system be that odd. Maybe that is how it has always been. Just a thought

  75. D'oh by Wes+Janson · · Score: 1

    So THAT'S where I left my ship! Damnit, I knew it was around here somewhere. Thanks NASA!

  76. The anti-Eath by White+Yeti · · Score: 1

    It's been studied and exposed by this odd documentary.
    ;)

  77. Bend over and kiss your ass goodbye by sail4evr · · Score: 1

    When you hear of a new NEO (near earth object) and they name it Thor's Hammer