User talk:RP88/Archive 9

__NOINDEX__

DYK for 2012 VP113
The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

OCO/sednoid
Hi,

Re. your rd, AFAICT, the inner Oort cloud is supposed to start at about 2,000 AU, well beyond the two known inner Oort cloud objects, so that may not be the best place for it. Maybe the article should be moved to "sednoid"? That's probably just as common, and they are by definition sednoids, regardless of whether someone accepts them as OCO's. — kwami (talk) 03:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict, written before you added the "That's probably just as common..." sentence) kwami, whether or not the article should be named "Sednoids" or "inner Oort cloud object" is kind a "on one hand or the other" situation. I think an article on the inner Oort cloud objects are fine, but whether or not the "Sednoids" are inner OCOs is not settled (although Dr. Sheppard certainly is of the opinion that they are).  The safest approach would be to call the article "Sednoids" with a mention that they are possible candidates for the inner Oort cloud. —RP88 (talk) 03:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * See Moving_a_page for instructions if you decide you want to move Inner Oort cloud object to Sednoid (although, given your editing experience you probably don't need this pointer). —RP88 (talk) 03:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll request to have it moved. — kwami (talk) 03:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * BTW, I see that Sheppard has q > 50 AU on his web site, but his published article makes a big deal about them being > 75, with essentially nothing in the range of 50–75 AU, and that they constitute a new population of objects at q > 75 AU, with a being irrelevant. — kwami (talk) 04:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't have access to the Nature article, so I can't look for myself. I see from the edit history that Kheider is of the opinion that the Nature article uses q>50 and a>150.  I'd normally consider him a very reliable editor on such matters.  Maybe open a discussion with him at Talk:Inner Oort cloud object? —RP88 (talk) 05:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't have direct access either, but I found it online somewhere last week. The whole reason for positing a population distinct from the extended disk was the gap between 50 and 75 AU, with modeling supporting the hypothesis that it's real and not just an observational artefact (fig. 2).  I'll try to find it somewhere.  — kwami (talk) 08:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, here you go. — kwami (talk) 08:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The 50/150AU is their model for the inner Oort cloud, but I don't think everyone accepts this. Their modeling shows a sharp inner edge at ca. 75AU, with little in the intervening space.  They do seem to form a population with bodies w perihelia of 30–50AU.  — kwami (talk) 08:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. Having read it I agree with Kheider and your latest note, Trujillo and Sheppard clearly have adopted q>50 and a>150 (and also a<1500) as their criteria for an inner Oort cloud object. Whether or not their criteria will be adopted by their colleagues is still to be determined. —RP88 (talk) 08:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And of course whether that is the same as 'sednoid'. If we found st at 52AU, I rather doubt it would be hailed as a third sednoid, whereas another object near Sedna or further out would be.  — kwami (talk) 09:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)