Talk:List of solar system objects by planetary discriminant

message: Should we merge this with Clearing the neighbourhood?--Sonjaaa 11:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually no... it so happens the data is already there Nbound 12:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a redirect is in order, the entire substance of this article is duplicated within clearing the neighborhood. There's just a little bit of merging to do to make the sections identical. Bryan 23:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: Is it a coincidence that Earth is the most planet-like at the top of the list?--Sonjaaa 16:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would guess no.  It probably pertains to the low frequency of major impacts which in turn allows for enough stability for complex life to emerge.  It's also the most massive of the inner planets, which I'm sure is a factor in giving it a high score.  --Aranae 17:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Earth on top

message: Can somebody add Sedna and other objects' stats on this page, so we can see "how close" they come to being a dwarf planet or whatever?--Sonjaaa 18:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sedna et alia

message: My instinct is that I'm skating close to the WP:No original research limitation but I would like to see this list include all the "Solar System Objects" which fulfill the Hydrostatic Equilibrium criterea (i.e. regardless of whether they orbit Sol, a Major planet or a Dwarf planet.) I'm intruigued as to whether Europa, Luna, Triton etc. have "cleared the neighbourhood" obviously the question is "has Triton cleared it's orbit of Neptune?" not "Has Triton cleared it's orbit of Sol?"
Considering satellites from the other direction, surely the Earth has not cleared a not inconsiderable 73.5Yg object from it's orbit (i.e. Luna) is that included in the planetary discriminant equation? MGSpiller 01:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I recall its only objects not gravitationaly bound to the object which contribute to the 'mass sharing the orbit' factor - the moon and 3753 Cruithne being in orbit of the earth is therefore excluded, as are the Trojan asteroids of Jupiter, etc. I can see arguments for either including or excluding satelites in the consideration (I would doubt it has much influence in any currently known cases), although I would clarify any statement to say that (for instance) 'The Earth-Moon [or whatever] system has cleared the neighbourhood',  in a highly technical article.  --Neo 14:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solar system objects? 

message: If lambda is normalised to Earth's lambda, the value of  \frac{\Lambda}{\Lambda_E} is a dimensionless. Why confuse the reader with Earth mass square and years? Or am I missing something? Eurocommuter 12:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are completely right! Albireo3000 16:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Units 

message: When the contents of the table are listed by a given numerical parameter, the actual order is not correct. I am assuming this a fault with the coding for orderable tables, but thought I would point it out here. Robin S 14:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Numerical values listed in incorrect order