This is an archive of past discussions about Kuiper belt. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
It turns out that the mean distance values and diameter estimates of these objects are noisy. We can cite the mean distance values from the Minor Planets Circular (which has no search engine itself, unfortunately). Brian Marsden does not share his error bars, so we cannot know how accurate the values are. But, at least there is one canonical source for the numbers.
The diameter estimates are even worse. They come from the absolute magnitude, which is moderately accurate, combined with the albedo, which for KBOs seem to be random guesses. Ordering the table by diameter estimates may be misleading.
Should we just display absolute magnitude in the table, and sort by that ? The downside is that very few people would understand what the parameter means.
-- hike395 10:03, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Why not include a paragraph explaining what you've just said? Wouldn't that sort out any confusion? :) Dysprosia 10:05, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Trans-Neptunian vs. Kuiper Belt
Current revision extensively uses TNO over KBO. Which is acronym preferred by astronomers? --- hike395 06:40, 5 Oct 2003 (UTC)
"KBO" would probably be better, since this is an KB, and not a TNO article. I used TNO thruout since "Kuiper" is not as good a name for the belt, but TNOs do of course include Oort cloud objects. How's the 2003-10-06t22:12z edit? Also, are subscript object numbers (1992 QB1) depreciated? - Jeandré, 2003-10-06t22:17z
Thanks for clarifying the article, Jeandré! It's much cleaner now. As for subscript object numbers, I think that it is uncommon. Much of the information on minor planets is still published in ASCII text files (for example, see [1] for the official list of TNOs from the Minor Planets Center). Thus, designations seem typically not to have subscripts. Even book-published ephimerides don't use subscripts (although this statement is relying on 15-year-old memories that may be incorrect).
Do we need separate articles?
The pair of articles Kuiper belt/Trans-Neptunian objects bothers me. As far as I can tell, the only TNOs that are not KBOs are Oort cloud objects, which have never been observed. This article is more fleshed out than the TNO article, but I don't know how to combine them rationally, since they aren't identical subjects. Should we copy over all of the good stuff? The articles will drift apart, anyway...
What's the precedent in Wikipedia? How do we handle levels of a taxonomy when one level is dominated by one leaf node below it? -- hike395 01:23, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I don't think there's anything wrong with having the Trans-Neptunian objects article become relatively puny. It may wind up only a glorified disambiguation page linking Oort and KB, but considering how many non-glorified disambiguating pages there are it won't be the worst of the lot. :) Now that I think of it, there's at least one other astronomical article that deserves mention in TNO that's neither Oort or KBO; Nemesis (star). I'll add that in. Bryan
Whether glorified disambiguation or not, KBO is a proper subset of TNO so we need separate pages. However, if all (or nearly all) the known TNOs are KBOs, this does not answer the question of whether these objects should be discussed in the Trans-Neptunian or Kuiper belt pages. Joelwest 14:31, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The 2nd paragraph could do with some rewording: the 2004 DW mention was just squeezed in.
I don't think we should link "2004 DW" until it has a post code name number e.g. 2004 DW42 (what is that number?), or a number e.g. Quaoar's 50 000 (what is that number called?). We can later move the article when it gets a religious proper name. - Jeandré 2004-02-20t10:50z
Thanks for updating the article. To answer your question, 2004DW is a number assigned to an apparition: a minor planet that is viewed over the course of one or two nights. The apparition does not have a very well determined orbit. Researchers go through a "pre-covery" process, which links together apparitions over a number of years. Once those are all linked together as one body, the orbit is much better determined and the minor planet considered "discovered" and given an official IAU number. The discoverer (the person who made the final apparition that linked together all previous ones) is then given a chance to name the object, subject to IAU approval.
2004DW is a perfectly valid apparition designation: the D means it is discovered in the 7th or 8th week of 2004, while W means that it was the 23rd apparition found.. You only start to see the extra numbers on the end when more than 26 apparitions are seen in a 2 week period, which almost always happens nowadays.
I see Sedna has been added to the list. I was under the impression that it was actually beyond the Kuiper belt... Evercat 19:44, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
It's definitely not an Oort cloud object, and I believe Oort and Kuiper are the only two divisions. Currently, anyway. These things are still somewhat ill-defined. Bryan 19:58, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
There is controversy over whether Sedna is Kuiper or Oort, and the current Sedna discussion now reflects that. Joelwest 14:31, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Well, this page says the KB goes to about 50 AU, but also gives Sedna's distance as 67 AU... Evercat 20:27, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The Oort cloud page says the Oort cloud doesn't begin until 50,000 AU, so I think KB is still a more likely classification for it. Does anyone know whether the 50 AU limit is based on some objective definition, or if that was simply as far out as anyone had detected KBOs to this point? Bryan 22:01, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Going to have to update the Oort cloud page, then. 50,000 AU is a few orders of magnitude off. :) Bryan 01:27, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Well that page calls Sedna an inner Oort cloud object. :-) Evercat 01:29, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Is it really Kuiper's belt?
Dan Green of Harvard has posted a scathing critique of the name "Kuiper Belt", far beyond the Edgeworth issue. He uses the terms "Cubewano-belt" or "Leonard/Edgeworth/Kuiper/Whipple-belt". He seems to be alone right now.
I don't think this questions whether we should have an entry or call it by "Kuiper belt", the commonly accepted usage. But do we want to acknowledge the controversy? Link to his page? Does anyone have knowledge of the issue beyond Green's complaint? Joelwest 14:31, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Kuiper belt is the most common name, so that should be used in Wikipedia, as per the Naming conventions. As for the name controversy, it should in my opinion definitely be addressed in this article. Only when standard use changes to Edgeworth-Kuiper or whatever-Kuiper belt should the term be changed everywhere. — Jor (Talk) 14:41, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I don't think the word "controversy" (n: a dispute where there is strong disagreement; "they were involved in a violent argument" (WordNet 1.6)) should be used. "Kuiper" is simply a strange name to use when one looks at the evidence presented; other suggestions are given but there is no mention of "Leonard/Edgeworth/Kuiper/Whipple-belt" in the article. - Jeandré, 2004-04-10t03:15z
Kuiper belt around other planets?
Is the name Kuiper belt unique to the belt of asteroids around the Sun, or can it be expanded to included other asteriod belts? And if not, what is the name given to the Kuiper belt around other planets? -- Ec5618 23:07, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
There are no Kuiper belts around planets. They only exist around stars. I presume that the term is used for any such belt and not just the one around our sun.
Whats the difference between the rings around Saturn and the Kuiper belt?
Well, here's a couple to start with:
Kuiper belt (like any asteroid belt) contains lots of large gravitationally bound bodies - right up to the size of Pluto, rings don't. The largest ring particles are at most rocks a couple of meters across, while many rings are composed purely of tiny dust-like particles.
Rings are dense enough to block an appreciable proportion of the light passing through them. Satrurn's rings block most of the light. The Kuiper belt is completely transparrent, and the distances between bodies in the Kupier belt (and in the asteroid belt) are huge. For example when New Horizons flew by an asteroid at a distance of 100,000 km, it was considered a "close" flyby. You can fly through the Kuiper belt without worrying over hitting anything appreciable, while if you were to fly through rings your spacecraft would crash.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mpml/message/15131
and
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mpml/message/15132
make it very clear that Ortiz et al. are the sole discoverers of 2003 EL61. There are no co-discoverers. Brown et al. had been observing this same object without reporting its position to the Minor Planet Center. They lost any right to discoverer status after Ortiz et al. reported their positions. Brown himself has admitted himself that Ortiz et al. are the rightful discoverers.
Actually, Brown now questions the discovery claim by Ortiz et al. [2]
Plutinos etc
Looking through the various Wikipedia entries, it appears that
Plutinos are Kuiper belt objects in a 3:2 resonance with Neptune
Cubewanos are Kuiper belt objects that have no resonance with Neptune
Scattered Disk Objects are Kuiper belt objects with an extremely eccentric orbit
A couple of questions:
1) What is the name for Kuiper belt objects in a non-3:2 resonance with Neptune?
2) Is there yet an official dividing line between DCubewanos and Scattered Disk Objects?
1) You mean in other resonances, like 1:2 or 3:4? I've seen 1:2-resonance objects called "twotinos". 1:1-resonance objects are of course Neptune trojans.
2) According to this SDOs are KBOs whose semimajor axes are greater than 50 AU plus those whose semimajor axes are from Neptune's orbital distance to 50 AU with perihelion distances less than 25 AU.--Jyril 12:56, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
(SDO)...objects with perihelia in the ∼35 to 40 AU range and characteristically large eccentricities and inclinations; from Jewitt [3]] Eurocommuter23:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
List of largest KBOs
Like it has been said above, it is horrible. Some of the values would require ridiculously low albedos (I suspect that they're just upper limits from nondetections). For example the absolute magnitude of (15874) 1996 TL66 is at the moment only 49th. Also some clearly large objects, like (55636) 2002 TX300 are missing.
Here's a list of all at the moment known KBOs with absolute magnitudes less than 4.0. Diameters are estimated from the albedo range from 1.0 to 0.03 [4]:
H diameter constraints [5]
2003 UB313 -1.2 2300-13300 < 3500 km (3000 km, p=0.6)
Pluto -1.0 2320 km (p=0.6)
2005 FY9 0.0 1300- 7700 50%-75% Pluto (1700 km, p=0.6)
2003 EL61 0.4 1100- 6400 70% Pluto (1400 km, p=0.6)
(90377) Sedna 1.6 640- 3700 <1500 km ? (p>0.18)
(90482) Orcus 2.3 460- 2700 ~1500 km ? (p=0.09)
Charon 1 1270 km (p=0.4)
(50000) Quaoar 2.6 400- 2300 1200+-200 km (p=0.12)
(28978) Ixion 3.2 300- 1800 1650+-165 km (p=0.09; d is probably gross overestimation)
(55636) 2002 TX300 3.3 290- 1700 (840 km, p=0.12)
(55565) 2002 AW197 3.3 290- 1700 890+/-120 km (p=0.1)
(55637) 2002 UX25 3.6 250- 1500 (730 km, p=0.12)
(20000) Varuna 3.7 240- 1400 900+/-140 km (p=0.07+-0.02)
2002 MS4 3.8 230- 1300 (670 km, p=0.12)
2003 AZ84 3.9 220- 1300 (640 km, p=0.12)
(84522) 2002 TC302 3.9 220- 1300 (640 km, p=0.12)
...
(15874) 1996 TL66 5.4 110- 640 (319 km, p=0.12)
For those without given diameters, I've used Quaoar's albedo value 0.12.
I thought 2003 UB313 was a KBO, and changed the article to reflect that, but after closer reading of its article and the SDO-page it seems to be a scattered disc object, so I'll revert my changes. Feel free to bring them back if I misunderstood. Amaurea10:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Why is it called Kuiper?
FTA In 1951 Gerard Kuiper suggested that objects did not exist in the belt anymore... The belt and the objects in it were named after Kuiper after the discovery of (15760) 1992 QB
Sounds rather fishy to me too. Possibly this is a misinterpretation of Kuiper's emphasis on the belt as the original location of the short-period comets observed in the inner solar system. 216.160.109.20506:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
I was going to ask a similar question. It seems as if this is worded incorrectly. What exactly did Kuiper say about the belt? Is this trying to say that he didn't think there would be any more objects discovered? Or that the nature of the belt wasn't what was previously asserted? Jasongetsdown22:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I've replaced the passage with a widely verified statement of Kuiper's involvement, that he proposed the belt is the location for short period comets. The previous sentence seemed to be nonsense. Jasongetsdown22:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
1992
Over 800 Kuiper belt objects (KBOs) (a subset of trans-Neptunian objects (TNOs)) have been discovered in the belt, almost all of them since 1992.
Why? I think the answer involves the Hubble space telescope, but I'm not sure. Please provide a detailed answer to this question in the article. Thank you. - RoyBoy80021:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Only two TNOs (Pluto and Charon) were discovered before 1992. Hubble has detected only a few previously unknown trans-Neptunian objects, vast majority of TNOs are found during ground-based sky surveys. Hubble with its tiny field of view is very impractical searching new objects.--Jyril22:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Should have known that, thanks... and why since 1992? Because computers were employed in conjunction with sky surveys to find new objects? - RoyBoy80015:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Pronunciation
The pronunciation guide in the artile isn't very useful. Does the 1st syllable rhyme with "eye" or is it pronounced like "key"? I'm not trying to be nitpicky; I came to the article because I was curious about exactly this point. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (pronunciation) for guidance on this. --דוד ♣ D Monack08:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
What was formed in situ?
"Modern computer simulations show the Kuiper belt to have been formed by the work of Jupiter, the young Jupiter having used its considerable gravity to eject smaller bodies which didn't all escape completely, and also having been formed in-situ." -- I'm trying to revise this (IMHO) odd and unclear sentence, but I can't understand just what is supposed to have been formed in-situ. Jupiter? The Kuiper belt? The smaller bodies? -- Writtenonsand05:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Structure
Further rationalisation is required, I believe, in order to clearly separate the legacy theories from the times the terms (Kuiper belt, classical objects, scattered disk) were coined with the results of current research. In addition, I feel, a further re-grouping of the existing material would be useful, into sub-sections
(modern) theories of the origin (with models explaining the distribution)
The only occurrence of the phrase "Kuiper Cliff" is in a sentence which already assumes that the term has been defined elsewhere. Ken Arromdee02:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Assessment of this article for Version 0.5
We plan to use this piece in the test CD release of Wikipedia. This article looks to be A-Class on the assessment scale to me, i.e., ready to go to peer review (or WP:GAN first, if you prefer). However, I'm not familiar enough with the topic to know if something major is missing. If there is a major topic (i.e. that should be >15% of the article) that is completely missing or glossed over, could someone change "class=A" to "class=B", and leave a note here why? Thanks, Walkerma16:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
The Oort cloud (if it exists) is too far away to provide short-term comets, and due to the loss of material on every close pass to the sun, short-term comets can't be billions of years old. So, the Kuiper belt was proposed to fill that gap. Now, we've found objects there, but they aren't proto-comets; hence, they are not a part of the "Kuiper" belt. The article admits that "some scientific groups" recommend not even using the name, due to the controversy, but makes no further reference to it, and does not explain it. Mdotley15:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the article reads as a mix of some remaining legacy content with today's feel. The two are not blended so the old sticks out. The small problem is that most researches are themselves shy to stir the terminology. (look what happened to Pluto discussion). So not so many people point out that for example Kuiper specifically did not believe in big objects that have been found in his Belt (e.g. Jewitt does). It proved not be the Belt by the way, but a thick torus. Etc, etc. New classification schemes are hopefully emerging (e.g. Elliot 2006). The shocking reminder for these theories is the opening diagram we kept (1998!). The article should go to a review, the content clearly separated into the old and new (including observational facts).A few summary, technically accessible peer-reviewed scientific papers exist to serve as solid refs. I would contribute to the review if decided. Eurocommuter09:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
So far, the supposedly strict usage that the latest version of the article makes of the term KBO, makes little sense and is not in accordance with astronomers' usage. Not just Mike Brown calls Eris a KBO [6] but also Jewitt [7] considers all to belong to the Kuiper Belt.
If Scattered KBOs should be separated because part of their orbits are beyond the conventional limits of the KB, then also should Plutinos, whose orbit also goes beyond those limits by the inner edge: Pluto and family cross the orbit of Neptune.
It's much more accurate in my opinion to group Classical KBOs, Plutinos and Scattered KBOs into the KB, as most astronomers actually do. (Sedna is not a KBO though). --Sugaar16:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Grouping Classical KBOs, Plutinos and Scattered KBOs into the KB makes it a blanket category for almost all Trans-Neptunian Objects (apart from Sedna and at most a couple of other objects in the "Extended Scattered Disc"), and categorising an object as such gives very little physical information. On the other point you mention: the Pluto family are being clearly separated as plutinos. Deuar20:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I see. But actually that's the case with our current state of knowldege: Trans-Neptunian objects are KBOs and Sedna (so far). KBOs are of three types: Plutinos, classical KBOs and scattered KBOs, sometimes called "scattered disk objects" though there's no real region called scattered disk (at most it is a subregion of the KB).
My point is that, when astronomers of the cathegory of Brown and Jewitt consider scattered objects to be just a type of KBOs, we sould follow their lead, until they (the astronomical community) change their mind. Making these kind of arbitrary separaations is very confuse and not Wikipedian (it's POV). --Sugaar03:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I certainly agree with your sentiments of not creating "wikipedia terms". The difficulty here is that there doesn't appear to be an overwhelming consensus as to the terminology among the astronomers. While e.g. Brown and Jewitt may use KBO as a blanket term, others don't. As evidence of widespread professional use check out the following (obtained by a google search)
The Planetary Society, a large and reputable professional+amateur+armchair astronomers organisation that is run by professional astronomers separates KBOs from Scattered disk objects on its Trans-Neptunian Objects fact page
A search for the phrase "scattered disk object" on Google Scholar turns up 37 hits in scientific publications.
In conclusion, separating out SDOs is not an arbitrary wikipedia decision but reflects the views of many and/or most professional astronomers, and as such is fine. If a consensus were to crystallize that they are a mere subset of the KBOs then we should then of course adapt the articles, but this will probably take the professionals a few years to sort out one way or the other. Until then, the current division is fine and also useful for illustrative purposes − the "typical" SDO orbit is qualitatively different from a "typical" classical KBO orbit, even if the boundary is indistinct. Deuar14:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I see your point.
Still it would probably be best, to make a short explanation of the issue in both articles. Maybe a brief section explaining that SDOs are considered by some astronomers as KBOs, while others don't, explaining maybe the main differences (inclination basically, am I wrong?) that cause them to be classified in a separate group.
Btw, how does anyone dares to suggest that Sedna, an object that is very well alligned with the eccliptic could be an SDO? Well, never mind. Just thinking loud. --Sugaar15:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree − it would be a good idea.
From what I know, the distinguishing features are a semi-major axis over ~45 AU, and a high eccentricity. In e.g. Image:TheKuiperBelt_100AU_SDO.svg, you can see the "classical" KBOs clustering in a compact bunch around 44 AU (± a few AU), and the scattered disc at larger distances. The classical KBOs appear in "hot" and "cold" populations, with the cold clustering at low inclinations. Then there is the other issue of whether the perihelion is near Neptune's orbit. In almost all cases it is, but a few bodies such as Sedna do not approach Neptune at any time. These then have been dubbed the "extended" scattered disc, because it is not clear how their orbits have become the way they are. It could not have been simple perturbations by Neptune. Deuar20:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't have a reference handy, but the problem with Sedna is that it's Perihelion is too far from the sun (or Neptune) to think of it as somehow scattered out of the Kuiper Belt in the usual way. Hence throwing around the talk about it being from the Oort cloud. There are other ways out of this (scattered disk object perterbed by a nearby star apart from the sun on a close encounter) and it's still far from figured out. WilyD20:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Good point, it's not explained in the article (it is mentioned, though but it's used incorrectly or the sentence needs some work, "Discoverer Michael E. Brown, for instance, has referred to Eris as a KBO, despite it having a mean orbital radius of 67 AU, well clear of the Kuiper cliff." maybe "placing it well outside of the Kuiper cliff?"). My astronomy is too old to edit this, probably. KP Botany23:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
The Kuiper cliff is expected from recent work on the formation of the Solar System. Growing evidence points to the Sun forming in a crowded environment (a stellar cluster like the Orion Nebula). In such environments, the disk around the young Sun would be truncated by starlight from the very hot, very bright stars in the vicinity (in Orion, these are the Trapezium stars, aka Theta Ori 1). In addition, these hot stars explode as supernovas on several-million-year timescales. The shock wave from these supernovas would also strip the outer edge of the protoplanetary disk. I'm in the process of reading up on this work. Once I have citations and text, I'll add it to the "Kuiper cliff" section.
The Astrogeek16:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
The meteor guys (I believe) there was a very nearby supernova at some point while planetesimals were forming (or at least, centimeter dust grains). That said, I'm sure I could dig up alternative mechanisms for the cliff - it's by no means universally agreed upon as to the cause, right? WilyD16:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Is the largest known Kupiter Belt object Triton?
It would seem to me that Triton would be the largest KBO (although technically it's no longer in the Kupiter Belt). Is this accurate? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.185.18.21 (talk) 01:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC).
The answer you're looking for is probably yes. WilyD
I don't know, but this article contradicts the Eris article. One says Pluto is the largest Dwarf planet, and the other says Eris is.
I'm not qualified to edit this page, so I urge someone who is to take a look.
1. The first half of the article is poorly cited. The same point was bought out duing the peer review but little action has gone in there.
2. Either add atleast stub articles for Frederick C. Leonard and Al G.W. Cameron or remove the wikilink. i would prefer the former.Done
3. "have been discovered in the belt, almost all of them since 1992." - why was 1992 a wateshed year? was a system installed to find about kuiper belt objects. need details here
4. as put in by someone above, the image in the lead section fits oort cloud and a different image will help better visualization of kupier belt. --Kalyan14:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I figured this would happen. The article may have been A-class but it seemed pretty threadbare to me. I've been planning to get going on it after finishing Uranus; now things are a bit more urgent, but I still need to see Uranus through. Serendipodous14:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
OK; started a rework, but it's late and I'm tired. So I'll paste some embryonic refs here until tomorrow
Created the two astronomer's stubs. Surprised that such men of repute have'nt even an entry in Wikipedia. Were they in the text? I didnt spot any red links there! Hope we have GA now!AshLin19:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Is anyone willing or able to create an analogue of this picture to illustrate the Kuiper belt? One that included the Centaurs, the Neptune Trojans and, if possible, the scattered disc? It would be hard, but it would be very useful. Serendipodous10:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, if no one competant will, I will. I already have the minor planet center data, and code to convert from orbital elements to cartesian coords. But I'm no master of IDL and GNUplot doesn't exactly make the sexiest images. WilyD15:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Numbers, numbers I need numbers
Does anyone know where I can locate up to date information on the numbers of objects in the Kuiper belt? Not only the total number of objects but also the numbers of cubewanos and plutinos. Thanks. Serendipodous11:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Frustrating. They have a list of TNOs but it is not numbered, plus it doesn't make a distinction between KBOs and TNOs, or from CKBOs and resonant KBOs. Serendipodous14:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/iau/lists/TNOs.html this list of TNOs plots like so I'm not sure the exact criterion used to generate it, but there are 1017 objects on the list. Never travels inside Neptune's orbit + ? I can play around with it a bit more, though my supervisor is pressing me to do real work these days. Cheers, WilyD15:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I believe the semi-major axis is rounded up for all these guys?
It's a little over 200 - but memebership is a little tough to guess exactly just from a, e, i. I can try to give you a tighter number later - but I need to go home and sleep right now. Cheers, WilyD10:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Good job. It's much better; you might try increasing the size of the pixels to make them stand out more. Again, thank you~ Serendipodous18:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Serendipodous Request
Alright, the planets are too big and this version is too low resolution. The postscript is nicer, and I could probably direct convert postscript to png or ... something. Anyways, Sun is red, planets are green, normal KBOs are blue, Centaurs and Scattered Disk objects are pink/purple, Jupiter's Trojans are Aquamarine and Neptune's Trojans are yellow. Okay, the colours stink. What else are you looking for? I'd be happy to give the raw data to someone who plots better too. WilyD17:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
It's great! All I'd suggest is using lighter pixels against a darker background to make the objects easier to discern. Thank you! Serendipodous17:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it's much better, though, and I hate to ask this, but could you perhaps mark out the objects with lighter colours so that they stand out more easily? ThanksSerendipodous18:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Even when I mark them quite lightly, they don't seem to show up very well in the thumbs. I may have to go back to the drawing board. WilyD18:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
It's fine. I think all that needs to be done is to increase the size of the pixels marking out the objects to make them more distinguishable. Plus it might be a good idea to name each of the planets to make the image more recognisable. Serendipodous18:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, this is a bit better, but I don't like the thumb very much still. And I can label the planets - you'll have to forgive a fool who didn't realise that wasn't obvious from the context. WilyD19:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
To us, it's obvious because we've been dealing with it for ages. But the average person who might click onto Wiki for the first time most likely doesn't even know the Kuiper belt exists. This picture will be a great visual icon to stir people's minds; Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and then in place of Pluto we find this great swarm of objects. It will be a great way to educate people about a very controversial subject. Besides naming the planets, the only thing I'd further suggest is that, like the asteroid image, their orbits be marked out. Thank you very much for all your help. I'm all abuzz about this picture. It's going in about ten separate articles once it's finished. Serendipodous19:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I labelled the four planets and the Sun. I considered labelling Pluto as well - but figured that'd be more confusing than helpful. WilyD19:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps it should be cropped to end at -60, -60 so there is less empty space and there's more space for the actual iamge? — Pious721:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Where is the definition of " a KBO, strictly speaking, is any object that orbits exclusively within the defined Kuiper belt" from? The reference given [1] simply shows centaurs and scattered disc objects are on a different list to trans-Neptunian objects. In the scientific literature, the scattered disc is still often referred to as part of the Kuiper Belt (see e.g. Delsanti and Jewitt 2006 [2]. AstroMark15:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, David Jewitt does define the scattered disc as part of the Kuiper belt. Mike Brown does too. Other organisations, such as the Planetary Society do not. The Minor Planet Center, which is the official catalogue of everything in the Solar System, lists scattered objects separately from the other trans-Neptunians, which are all Kuiper belt objects. Note that on that list there is no mention of Eris, or of 1996 TL66, or any other scattered object. I am of the opinion, and this is of course contestable, that Wikipedia should make a distinction between the Kuiper belt and the Scattered disc, because if it does not, that leaves some open questions about whether the centaurs should be considered KBOs as well, since they are also scattered, or even the Jupiter-family comets. Serendipodous22:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I take it you still consider scattered disc objects to be TNOs despite the fact that the MPC lists them in a different section? Unless the MPC or IAU actually have a definition somewhere saying that the scattered disc is separate from the Kuiper Belt, I don't think that can really be used as a reference. Do you know of anywhere in the scientific literature where the SD is considered separate to the KB? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AstroMark (talk • contribs) 10:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Since there is clearly no consensus in the scientific community on this matter, I think it would be better if Wikipedia reflects this. It should be made clear that the definition given is not necessarily the accepted definition. AstroMark10:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I wholeheartedy agree with AstroMark here. Let's just do this, rather than have another unending debate about definitions. Deuar08:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I also agree with AstroMark. It is confusing to novices, and the extent of the Kuiper belt is not certain; so what issue is being served by claiming Pluto is the largest KBO?. Simply loose that sentence or say that Pluto is a large KBO. ~rlj —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.243.176.158 (talk) 16:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
But Pluto also says that it is the largest KBO, as does Solar System, and indeed every other article dealing with the topic. I know this because I wrote most of them myself. I did include a line in the Kuiper belt article explaining that the definition of the Kuiper belt was not settled, but, since Wikipedia needs some form of definition to function, I chose the Minor Planet Center's implicit definition as the closest thing to a statement from a recognised authority. Serendipodous17:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me, i don't know, how to use all this tags yet :(
I have a question - why in the page written, that Pluto is largest object in Kuiper belt? The Eris appears to be 1,5 times larger, am i right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.233.156.21 (talk) 07:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
That's the issue here. If the Scattered disc is part of the Kuiper belt, then Eris is the largest object in the Kuiper belt. If the Scattered disc is separate from the Kuiper belt, then Pluto is the largest object in the Kuiper belt. To sign your posts use four tilde (~) marks.Serendipodous08:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
In general I'd follow the Minor Planet Centre's lead, eh? Realistically, the scattered disk and centaurs come from the Kuiper Belt (sort of, maybe not quite in the first case, but I digress) but don't have to be included in the def. Minor planet centre seems like the relevant authority. WilyD13:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
This issue goes far beyond this article. It encompasses every single trans-Neptunian article on this site. I even think a separate article dealing with this issue might be in order. Serendipodous11:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
As regards the "Kuiper cliff" section: a larger planet would be one reason for the observed lack of objects found, but couldn't there be some much simpler kind of observation bias (some criticism of the conclusion, that would then belong to the section):
objects outside the "cliff" are numerous, but incredibly hard to observe due to faintness and slow orbital movement,
same but due to too dark (tholin from solar wind dissociation of CO and CO2),
Apparently that isn't the case. The line mentioning Bernstein and Trilling's observations was horrifically worded, so I've condensed it, but in essence it appears that the Kuiper cliff is indeed real. Serendipodous15:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, yes, I'm reading Bernstein and Trilling now – they say that this phenomenon is noted by many observational programs. However, they treat a lot of material that claims the (real) Kuiper cliff, can have a lot of natural reasons, such as the solar nebula had too low density outside the cliff to condense to icy boulders of any significant size. I'll see what I can do with that. Said: Rursus☻15:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I've read it now, and Bernstein and Trilling mentions lots of reasons, of which none is Planet X Reborn. The NewScientistSpace seems to be way wrong in claiming Planet X Reborn to be the only viable reason. Said: Rursus☻16:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
There has to be a wealth of literature set on far off locations in the Kuiper Belt, devoted to KBOs. It'd be good to have a section in the article page that lists the texts/novels for plain 'ole bed-time reading :=) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.170.74 (talk) 19:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
That would fall outside the scope of the article. A "Kuiper belt in fiction" page would probably be listed for deletion. The Kuiper belt has only been known about for about fifteen years, so the total amount of literature depicting it in science fiction would be relatively small. It might warrant its own section in Solar System in fiction. Serendipodous05:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I've seen both, but if Kuiper belt is to be capitalised, then asteroid belt should be too, and it seemed simpler to just stick with the established style. Serendipodous01:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Eris
This article says that Pluto is the largest dwarf planet, but the Eris article says Eris is larger. Does someone know which is correct? Cadwaladr (talk) 22:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not aware that the article says that Pluto is the largest dwarf planet, but Pluto is the largest Kuiper belt object, at least according to the Minor Planet Center's definition of the Kuiper belt. Serendipodous22:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Eris is an SDO? Does isa('SDO',X) imply isa('KBO',X)? Problem with astronomy is carelessness with terminology and term creation, instead c.f. IUPAC and chemistry terminology. Said: Rursus (☻) 12:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Some say yes. Some say no. The MPC right now says no, and since the MPC is the closest thing to an authority on this issue, that's the rule we follow. Serendipodous13:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Huh? If it's not classical and it's not scattered, does that mean that they've classed it as resonant? I know there have been some claims that Eris is resonant. Serendipodous14:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
If DES calculated it as resonant it would be listed as such. (See: (82075) 2000 YW134 in Talk:Detached object (astronomy). I e-mailed Marc Buie, and he replied that he was making some updates to the software and that after he chases down some gremlins (likely in the database), he will re-run the Eris numbers. Removed objects do not survive the 10 million year orbit integration (usually means ejection from the solar system). -- Kheider (talk) 13:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
The problem appears to be fixed. Eris is no longer at risk of being ejected from the solar system in the next 10 Myr. :-) -- Kheider (talk) 14:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Eris is not KBO
Eris is the largest TNO(trans-Neptunian object) and the largest dwarf planet with diameter 0-8% larger than Pluto, but it is not belong to the KBO group. Its orbit( Perihelion 37.77 AU and Aphelion 97.56 AU) is much farther in distance with sun than pluto and other KBOs, which classified it as the SDO( Scattered disk object).Cipher_10103:54, 05 May 2008 (UTC)
Mike Brown calls it a KBO (see his page here: http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/planetlila/, for instance). Whether the Scattered disk is part of the Kuiper Belt is not uniformly agreed upon by astronomers, but *most* do take the view that the Classical Kuiper Belt (both the hot and cold components), the Scattered Disk and the Resonant Objects (Plutinos and the like) are all portions of the Kuiper Belt - only detacted objects aren't, and with a perihelion at 38 AU, Eris is not detacted. WilyD12:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
It's odd, because this article doesn't actually say that Eris is a KBO. In lieu of anything like an established consensus, we (really, perhaps I should say "I", since there wasn't a lot of discussion on the topic until after the fact) decided to follow the example set by the Minor Planet Center, which separates its outer minor planets into two categories, "Trans Neptunians" (really, classical and resonant KBOs) and "scattered objects" (SDOs and centaurs). By the way, Sedna, the black sheep of the whole scheme, is considered scattered in their scenario. So as far as I and, for the moment at least, this article are concerned, Eris is certainly not a KBO. Serendipodous16:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
cubewanos or cubiwanos?
The image of Kuiper belt classes uses the spelling "cubiwanos" while the article uses "cubewanos". I suspect the image should be updated to "cubewanos". I also suggest the plural of the correct spelling be made a redirect as presently only the singular "Cubewano" is redirecting to Classical Kuiper Belt Objects. Red Harvest (talk) 16:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Kuiper belt objects: Physical Studies by Stephen Tegler: "Average densities <1 g cm-3 suggest that KBOs and Centaurs likely have ice-rich and porous interiors...H20-ice bands are seen in the spectra of Charon, 19308 1966 TO66, Varuna, Quaoar, Orucs, Pholus and Charilklo. CH4-ice bands are seen in the specrra of Pluto, Neptune's moon Triton... Eris and [Makemake]" Serendipodous12:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Kuiper Belt and Pluto
The Pluto/Neptune anomaly of the Titius-Bode progression is predicted in the Initial Mass Displacements of the Solar System.[12]
Although the total Ceres mass includes an asteroid belt (2.8 AU), the total Pluto mass is unique. Excluding Neptune, a variety of objects (Kuiper Belt) between 48.8 AU and 28.8 AU had a total mass of 10 Earth masses (i.e., Pluto Initial Mass).--FrankHatch (talk) 03:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for not putting your speculations in the article. Please be aware that any discussion of Bode's Law is outside the scope of this article and indeed, outside the scope of Wikipedia. Serendipodous06:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
contrary
quote:
""In the region between 40 and 42 AU, for instance, no objects can retain a stable orbit over such times, and any observed in that region must have migrated there relatively recently.[40]
Classical belt
Between approximately 42–48 AU, however, the gravitational influence of Neptune is negligible, and objects can exist with their orbits essentially unmolested"".
The 40-42 AU can be unstable (over the age of the solar system) due to resonanceperturbation by Neptune. Anything in a 2:3 resonance with Neptune (39.5AU from the Sun) will have a mild eccentricity. Beyond 42AU the strong 2:3 Neptune resonance will not perturb/excite you. But all of this is also a function of eccentricity and inclination. The 1:2 resonance is near 48AU. -- Kheider (talk) 14:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Someone keeps adding Eris to the Kuiper belt. Eris should not be in the Kuiper belt because the MPC does not consider it part of the Kuiper belt. Serendipodous20:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi world: for what it is worth, working astronomers generally call everything with a semimajor axis outside of Neptune but inside of the Oort cloud a Kuiper belt object. The distinctions between things like SDOs and resonant objects etc. are dynamical, not physical. Leaving Eris out of a list of KBOs is very very odd. -Mike Brown — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.64.52 (talk) 21:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, Mike, assuming you are Mike, maybe if you can convince the IAU to drop the absolute magnitude criterion for dwarf planets, you could also convince them to change their definition of the Kuiper belt. :) Serendipodous04:35, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
BTW, on Mike's site he says that Sedna is not a KBO because it orbits outside the belt.[13]
Papers such as this one do speak of the scattered disk vs. the main KB and clearly imply that the SD is part of the KB too. But they do say that Sedna is beyond the KB. — kwami (talk) 15:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
The source from which the power law is taken says that dN/dD ∝ Dq, while the formula in our text says -q. Is it a mistake or have I misunderstood something? Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 09:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
The size distribution can (and is) defined in many different ways. Saying that dN/dD ∝ D-q and q=4 is equivalent to saying dN/dD ∝ Dq and q=-4 or even dN/dD ∝ D2-3q and q=2 as some authors may write it. So long as the article is consistent I don't think this matters too much. AstroMark (talk) 13:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
No, if you look int the source, it says that dN/dD ∝ Dq and that q=4 (not -4), so it is something completely different from what there is in this article. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 19:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I think there is a mistake (typo) in Bernstein et al. There should be minus, otherwise the number of objects would grow with object size which is obviously not the case. Bernstein refers to another source: Trujillo and Brown, The Radial Distribution of the Kuiper Belt, 2001. It says "number of objects between radius and following " and all discussed vaues of are positive. --Egg✉06:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
AstroMark is correct, however q is generally used in this exact context as dN/dD ∝ D-q. In Bernstein et al. it is dN/dD ∝ Dq on p. 1365, but it is D-q when mentioned in the discussion on p. 1380. q's value is discussed as positive in the literature. See Fraser et al. (2008) if anyone wants to go through the full thing and see discussion of the current best-known q value. Iridia (talk) 12:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
The size distribution section is out of date. Recent articles have a steeper size distribution with a break to a shallow distribution at small sizes or with a divot, a drop in the number of objects at a given size. The hot and cold populations also may have differing size distribution. In The Absolute Magnitude Distribution of Kuiper Belt Objects uses a broken power law for the hot objects q1=5.3 and q2=2.0 with the break at H=7.7, for the cold objects q1=8.2 and q2=2.9 with a break at H=6.9. These new results are the product of accounting for observational biases in the surveys.
Capitalization of "Belt"
I feel very strongly that this article should make reference, both in its title and throughout its text, to the Kuiper Belt. The name "Kuiper Belt" is the unique name of a unique thing, like the Isthmus of Panama, the Sea of Cortez, the Bering Strait, or Vancouver Island. We may consider all of these to be compound proper nouns. The same holds true for the Oort Cloud. If one goes to http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/ one will find "Kuiper Belt" and "Oort Cloud" exclusively. NASA is right, of course! Writtenright (talk) 03:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)writtenright
If we did that, then we'd have to call the asteroid belt the Asteroid Belt and I don't think there's a consensus to do that. Serendipodous04:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it's necessary to capitalize "belt" in this case; I can see both sides of it... But the Kuiper Belt was named for someone, whereas the asteroid belt wasn't -- it's just a belt of asteroids, hence the name. Omnedon (talk) 04:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
This isn't a decision for WIkipedia editors to make -- the answer is how is the capitalization most standardly found in dictionaries and authoritative scientific print publications. Unfortunately I'm finding "Kuiper belt" in one dictionary, which does seem to contradict its composite-noun use (e.g. you won't find "The Kuiper belt of comets...", or "The Kuiper is a belt of..."). But not up to me. If "Kuiper Belt" is sometimes found in authoritative sources, then it's "The Kuiper belt (sometimes Kuiper Belt)...". Also to be dealt with: "Kuiper belt objects", capitalized KBOs (which certainly sounds like a composite entity and not a phrase, but...). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.180.6.81 (talk) 04:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I second the original point that Kuiper Belt should be capitalized. Both NASA and ESA use it this way. The user above is referring to a dictionary that uses it without the capitalization of the word 'belt'. With all due respect, general libraries like dictionaries aren't really known for their accuracy on details when it comes to scientific titles and subjects. In the context of "Kuiper Belt Objects", the word 'belt' is always capitalized. And aside from NASA and ESA which I think should be major references, if you search for "kuiper belt" on Google, the capitalized version is found a lot more in other sources too. Like people said before me, it doesn't make sense without capitalization. It is not just the belt named after Kuiper. It's not even a belt in the literal sense. The 'belt' is a symbolical, metaphorical reference that is an integral part of the proper name of this phenomenon. It's not like the "Sahara desert", which is literally a desert that is called Sahara, and can also be adressed by just calling it the "Sahara". It's not like the "St. John's hospital" which is literally a hospital that is called after St. John, and can also be adressed by just calling it "St. John's". You can't refer to the "Kuiper", or "the belt called Kuiper". It's always "Kuiper Belt". It's a proper name, so it should be capitalized always, just by language rules alone. Note that it's DIFFERENT from the "Main asteroid belt", which is indeed, an asteroid belt that is (or was) thought to be the "main one". The Kuiper Belt is an asteroid belt too, and indeed if it had been called "Kuiper's asteroid belt", or "Kuiper's belt", then you could argue that you should write it uncapitalized like that. But it's not called that; it's called the "Kuiper Belt". It's not a belt of Kuipers, it's not a belt that belongs to Kuiper, it's a belt (or an object symbolically described as a belt) that is called after the person. Compare for instance the Panama Canal which is a similar case. Even though "canal" is a name for an object, it is in this case an integral part of the proper name of the canal, which is never just referred to as "the Panama". It is always "Panama Canal", the word canal is an integral part of the name, and therefore it is capitalized. I rest my case. Greetings, RagingR2 (talk) 00:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
A subtle difference
"Originally considered a planet, Pluto's position as part of the Kuiper belt has caused it to be redefined as a 'dwarf planet." reads as Pluto was redefined whereas it wasn't, planet was. JIMptalk·cont19:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
It is supposed that the solar wind moves direct planetary orbital .but it might be all around any quarter of sun , then we can suppose that the kuiper belt be spherical round solar system (not ring ). is it because of Einshtein general relativity that the solar wind have to move in such direction?--Akbarmohammadzade (talk) 05:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)Iran
--Akbarmohammadzade (talk) 09:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
well the O'ort belt is far from us , but we can see the effects of Kuiper belt where that first send water here to earth. ( in fact I am studying about the effects of solar wind on production of water in solar system , which cased the existence of life in this system)Akbarmohammadzade (IUST)--[[
Special:Contributions/78.38.28.3|78.38.28.3]] (talk) 08:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.38.28.3 (talk)
What is the exponent in the power law?
The text states "q = 4 ±0.5"
but that is immediately followed by a numeric example
"there are for instance 8 (=2^3) times more objects in 100–200 km range than objects in 200–400 km range. In other words, for every object with the diameter of 1,000 km (621 mi) there should be around 1000 (=10^3) objects with diameter of 100" which seems to be using an exponent of 3.
Geoffrey.landis (talk) 18:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
q refers to the differential power law, i.e. dn/ds ~ s^{-q} , while the latter is using cumulative number in a range, i.e. dn/ds Δs - so they're in agreement. WilyD18:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Rhyming
"Kuiper" is not an English sound and WP:PRON also says that such usages only may be useful. The basic concern of WP:PRON is mere IPA. The addition of rhyme in the case of this article is redundant and makes Wikipedia look like an elementary school rhyming dictionary, which it is not. Also, "viper" is not a welcoming word for the lead. Brandmeistertalk10:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Your issues with its addition appear to be principally aesthetic rather than practical, and I don't really think aesthetics are worth fighting an edit war over. So in any case I'm grateful you finally decided to take this to the talk page. The rhyming pronunciation is for Kuiper's Anglicised name, which is different from the Dutch original. You could argue that it is not strictly necessary, but it saves the reader a minute or so of clicking and reading small print, so I think it helps. Serendipodous10:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
The IPA template provides instant pronunciation hints by just pointing to with the cursor, so even if a person doesn't know what IPA is, (s)he would easily get it. A rhyming word often clutters the lead, where the reader may want to instantly skip to the text. Personally I don't think "viper" or any other rhyming word here is vital for the article (or is a major improvement). Brandmeistertalk10:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Tell ya what. How about a tie-break? Let someone else post, and whichever side that person agrees with, that's what we go for? Serendipodous11:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
I suspect a lot of kids are drawn to this article, and few of them will be familiar w the IPA. So IMO giving a rhyme is useful. If not "viper" (though kids would probably like that), there "hyper", "piper", "riper", "wiper". — kwami (talk) 10:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Update, extension request
Could someone update the histogram [14] to include the objects found since 2007, and ideally extend it on the right to 55 or 60 AU, so that the "Kuiper cliff" is more clearly visible? Thanks! --Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Like this? It's not that visible by eye - the R^4 detection probability is still dominant; plus, including scattered objects washes it out. But the MPC does, so I have to. WilyD12:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
@WilyD: That looks great, thanks! If you could give the data list you used as a reference, I'd like to add it to the article.
That is indeed the list I used. If my word choice was unclear, "Hot classical" objects wash out the Kuiper cliff, then, since they're just scattered disk objects. But until someone gets around to writing a paper on the point, I think Wikipedia is stuck with this. WilyD08:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
As with most things to do with the outer solar system, the terminology is a pain in the friggin arse. We have very little to go on and there isn't much of a call for any kind of standard as of yet. So the IAU's half-baked "definition" is pretty much all we can use. Serendipodous21:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I know. The literature and (correspondingly) most experts do too. But it's wrong, so it screws up the plot, and bothers me. "Someone" will have to fix it there before we fix it here though. WilyD08:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Correction to "Kuiper cliff" Section
Paragraph 2, sentence 1 says "Earlier models of the Kuiper belt had suggested that the number of large objects would increase by a factor of two beyond 50 AU . . ." If it's a cliff, shouldn't this say decrease instead of increase? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JKW (talk • contribs) 12:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes. If you would read it more carefully, then you would see that it says that it does decrease. The sentence you quote describes what people expected to find. --JorisvS (talk) 12:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Ah, yes, you're right. I read the passage too quickly. Thank you for correcting me, and thanks for the outstanding article. Please delete this talk section since it adds nothing useful.--JKW (talk) 15:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
![[14]](https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:Semimajorhistogramofkbos.svg){kind=link}
