Talk:Kuiper belt/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  KBO table 

message: Some source pages for 2004 DW: http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~chad/2004dw/ (calls it a plutino) and http://www.hohmanntransfer.com/mn/0402/19.htm#04dw (cubewano).
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.
:-- hike395 14:42, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite issues 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Sedna 

message: 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 ] Eurocommuter 23:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plutinos etc 

message: 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 :
                      H    diameter    constraints 
         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.
--Jyril 15:15, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
:I certainly wouldn't object to a substantial rewrite.  :Template:Trans-Neptunian dwarf planets should be simultaneously updated to reflect only the real biggies. -The Tom 19:02, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought  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. Amaurea 10:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of largest KBOs 

message: 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 
I don't get it. If Kuiper said that objects did not exist in the belt why was the belt named after him?!! I just checked the history and this is where the change was made in the article (2003) : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kuiper_belt&diff=1459803&oldid=1459783 --156.34.78.219 06:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. 216.160.109.205 06:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See #Is it really Kuiper's belt? — Jeandré, 2005-10-25t12:32z
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? Jasongetsdown 22:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is it called Kuiper? 

message: :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. - RoyBoy 800 21:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.--Jyril 22:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Should have known that, thanks... and why since 1992? Because computers were employed in conjunction with sky surveys to find new objects? - RoyBoy 800 15:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  1992 

message: 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 Monack 08:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: "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? -- Writtenonsand 05:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What was formed in situ?

message: 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)
*what is known on colours (spectral characteristics) with current thinking about the physical characteristics. Eurocommuter 11:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure 

message: The only occurrence of the phrase "Kuiper Cliff" is in a sentence which already assumes that the term has been defined elsewhere. Ken Arromdee 02:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone please fix this 

message: 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, Walkerma 16:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.  Mdotley 15:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Eurocommuter 09:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment of this article for Version 0.5

message: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twotino. Uncle G 07:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Losing information on the various classes of KBOs 

message: Kuiper cliff redirects here, but isn't mentioned in the article. Serendipodous 15:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 Botany 23:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

text: 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? WilyD 16:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kuiper cliff

message: 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)
thread_title:  Is the largest known Kupiter Belt object Triton? 

message: Anyone know when `Transneptunian Objects', Barucci et al. eds., University of Arizona Press is coming out? WilyD 18:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's out now, but under the title "The Solar System Beyond Neptune". AstroMark (talk) 17:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Serious source

message: The image at the top of this article is more an image of the Oort cloud than the Kuiper belt. Serendipodous 07:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Can we find a better lead image?

message: 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. --Kalyan 14:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Serendipodous 14:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK; started a rework, but it's late and I'm tired. So I'll paste some embryonic refs here until tomorrow
  
Serendipodous 21:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, 300 edits later, what do you think? Serendipodous 12:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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!AshLin 19:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA review comments

message: 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. Serendipodous 10:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Asteroid belt picture

message: 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. Serendipodous 11:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Serendipodous 14:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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, WilyD 15:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. That is what they call above and beyond the call. Wonderful job. Thanks a lot! Serendipodous 15:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really deserve the praise - I had already made this plot for something else.  WilyD 15:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you perhaps tell me how many are in that first clump? Thanks. Serendipodous 09:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Good job. It's much better; you might try increasing the size of the pixels to make them stand out more. Again, thank you~ Serendipodous 18:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Numbers, numbers I need numbers

message: 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. WilyD 17:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's great! All I'd suggest is using lighter pixels against a darker background to make the objects easier to discern. Thank you! Serendipodous 17:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like this second version?  WilyD 18:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmm, in the thumbnail version the second form is too dark.  :( WilyD 18:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text: 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. WilyD 18:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text: 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. WilyD 19:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Serendipodous 19:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I labelled the four planets and the Sun.  I considered labelling Pluto as well - but figured that'd be more confusing than helpful. WilyD 19:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text: 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? — Pious7 21:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any closer and we start chopping off objects (I didn't look too closely at it, but I assume the range is currently set by Eris (dwarf planet). WilyD 22:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Serendipodous Request

message: I'm a bit confused about this. Did it form where it is, or was it sent into its orbit by Neptune? Serendipodous 15:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Origin of the dynamically cold classical belt

message: Where is the definition of " a KBO, strictly speaking, is any object that orbits exclusively within the defined Kuiper belt" from? The reference given  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 . AstroMark 15:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Serendipodous 22:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: There's plenty of scientific literature treating the kuiper belt and scatterd disc as separate, but no, there is no official definition. The scattered objects in the MPC's catalogue are treated separately from the Trans-Neptunians presumably because Centaurs are not trans-Neptunian. Mike Brown's argument for including the scattered disc as part of the Kuiper belt and excluding the centaurs is quite complex, involving long term Solar System dynamics. He explains it here, though it's a bit above my head and I don't profess to fully understand it yet.Serendipodous 11:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. AstroMark 10:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wholeheartedy agree with AstroMark here. Let's just do this, rather than have another unending debate about definitions. Deuar 08:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. Serendipodous 17:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

text: 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.Serendipodous 08:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. WilyD 13:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmmm, about time I replied to this. I've decided to start making a list of the various definitions of the Kuiper belt for future reference. Feel free to add to it. AstroMark (talk) 17:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scattered Disc 

message: 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),
Said: Rursus ☻ 14:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Serendipodous 15:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: OK. reworked it and added some of Bernstein/Trilling's speculations. Serendipodous 16:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems fine now. THX! Said: Rursus ☻ 18:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Kuiper Cliff cause??

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. Serendipodous 05:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kuiper Belt in Science Fiction 

message: which one is the correct form? Shouldn't "b" be capitalized since it is a name? Nergaal (talk) 01:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Serendipodous 01:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: name: K. Belt vs K. belt

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. Serendipodous 22:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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. Serendipodous 13:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

text: According to DES, Eris is REMOVED.  Hmm, I'm not even sure what that means.  I know 2007 UK126 is also REMOVED vs being CLASSICAL/SCATNEAR/SCATEXT. -- Kheider (talk) 14:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Serendipodous 14:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Eris

message: 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_101 03:54, 05 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Serendipodous 16:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Eris is not KBO

message: 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)
replies: text: The correct spelling is "cubewano", so that image will have to be photoshopped, which I can't do. Serendipodous 17:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I update the image. Ruslik (talk) 17:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I see the plural redirect has been added.  I have also added a plural redirect for "twotinos" to TNO's. Red Harvest (talk) 04:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  cubewanos or cubiwanos? 

message: Composition of the Volatile Material in Halley's Coma from In Situ Measurements isn't freely available.
Could someone please give a relevant quote of this that says KBO's are made mostly of ices? HarryAlffa (talk) 19:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Composition: Request quotation

message: The Pluto/Neptune anomaly of the Titius-Bode progression is predicted in the Initial Mass Displacements of the Solar System.
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)
replies: text: 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. Serendipodous 06:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kuiper Belt and Pluto 

message: 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"". 
this is seem to me contrary, i don`t understand the objects of Kuiper belt at distance between 40 and 42 AU from the sun have stable or unstable orbits! --عباد مجاهد ديرانية (talk) 10:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 40<--->42 = not stable. 42<---->48 = stable. Is there a contradiction? HumphreyW (talk) 11:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The 40-42 AU can be unstable (over the age of the solar system) due to resonance perturbation 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)
thread_title:  contrary 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Thanks everybody for their answers. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 18:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size distribution 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. Serendipodous 04:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Seems to me both are equally justified/correct, and WP just happens to have gone for Kb. Rothorpe (talk) 20:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Capitalization of "Belt" 

message: "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. JIMp talk·cont 19:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: changed to "reclassified". Serendipodous 22:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  A subtle difference 

message: guys, over 9000 is a 4chan meme and the source "DBZ #1.28" is an episode of Dragon Ball Zee.Hexrei2 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 04:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's really embarrassing. I can't believe no one here noticed it. Thanks for the headsup. Serendipodous 09:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  the number of known Kuiper belt objects (KBOs) has increased to over 9000

message: 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)
replies: text: The Kuiper belt is a belt. The Oort cloud, is, presumably, a sphere. Serendipodous 09:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The solar wind 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Power law 3?  Or 4? 

message: "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. Brandmeistertalk   10:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Serendipodous 10:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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). Brandmeistertalk   10:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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? Serendipodous 11:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mind. Brandmeistertalk   11:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Rhyming 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Correction to "Kuiper cliff" Section