Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space

Astronomer Finds Potential Furthest Object In Solar System 58

Posted by BeauHD from the galaxy-far-far-away dept.
Prominent astronomer Dr Scott Sheppard, of the Carnegie Institution for Science in Washington D.C., has discovered a new object in the distant reaches of our solar system and given it the name FarFarOut. "At 140 times further away from the sun than our own planet is, the newly identified body -- if its discovery is confirmed -- will become the furthest known object in our solar system," reports The Guardian. Sheppard's discovery was made after his team was analyzing astronomical data to track down Planet Nine, a yet-to-be-discovered body thought to have 10 times the mass of Earth. From the report: Sheppard said he made the discovery of FarFarOut when a lecture he was due to give on his team's work was postponed and he went back to analyzing his data. He said FarFarOut was somewhat mysterious. "It is very faint; it is on the edge of our ability to detect it," Sheppard said. "We don't know anything about the orbit of this object, we just know it is far, far out." Sheppard said further observations were in the offing to shed more light on the find. The current record holder -- a dwarf planet at 120 times the Earth-sun distance -- was named merely FarOut when it was spotted by the same team in December last year.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Astronomer Finds Potential Furthest Object In Solar System More

Astronomer Finds Potential Furthest Object In Solar System

Comments Filter:

  • Just my opinion, but (Score:5, Funny)

    by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 ) on Wednesday February 27, 2019 @02:03AM (#58187260)

    What’s next - FarFarFarOut?

    Maybe we need to take the naming rights away from these astronomers.

    • Re:Just my opinion, but (Score:5, Funny)

      by sheramil ( 921315 ) on Wednesday February 27, 2019 @02:13AM (#58187272)

      I'm just glad he wasn't allowed to name it Trans-Uraniany McTrans-Uranianface.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        These kinds of problems in the society can always be solved with generous amounts of single malt.

      • They know what they're doing.

        Farther McFarface was already taken.

        And farfarfarout.com was still available as of this morning.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by novakyu ( 636495 )

        Or for short, "Tranny McTrannyface".

      • Yes. They decided on the much more mature name of "Bunghole"

    • Could be worse (Score:5, Funny)

      by Solandri ( 704621 ) on Wednesday February 27, 2019 @02:57AM (#58187350)
      If the USB people were in charge of naming these, this discovery would've resulted in changing the name of FarOut to FarFarOut mk 1, and this one would've been named FarFarOut mk 2. The next one found further away would be named FarFarOut 2x2 because... I have no idea. Maybe the guy naming these was dropped on his head as a baby and never really recovered?

      • You’ve given me an idea.

        I propose that the members of the USB Working Group be dropped on their heads repeatedly until they start demonstrating an ability to adopt sane naming conventions. This may take a while, so I’m calling for volunteers with strong arms and backs.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Shotgun ( 30919 )

      They should have went with "Ludicrous Far Out".

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Wednesday February 27, 2019 @02:11AM (#58187268)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • As far as clearing out other objects in it's orbit, Earth is making things worse: it's adding more space junk to it's orbit and the orbits of other planets and non-planetary objects.

      We are currently the litterbugs of the Solar System.

    • Unless the new planet has an Intel inside. Then the satellite should be SX, and the combined system of planet and satellite DX.

    • Re:Error in the number (Score:5, Informative)

      by Sique ( 173459 ) on Wednesday February 27, 2019 @04:10AM (#58187462) Homepage
      Then no single planet of the Solar System is a planet, as all planets have some space debris in their respective Lagrange points.

      The first Planet Nine was Ceres, and it was demoted again after the discovery of lots of objects in what we call now the Asteroid belt. Then in 1931, Pluto was promoted a planet because for some time, no one found other objects that far out that weren't moons of Neptune. And then suddenly, the number of objects discovered around Pluto increased, and Pluto wasn't even the largest of them (Ceres on the other hand is the largest object in the Asteroid belt). Thus Pluto shared the fate of Ceres and got demoted from planetary status again.

      We should have kept the original definition of planets: sky objects that move against the stellar background, hence the greek name 'planetos', wanderer. Then we would have to include for instance Barnard's star or Proxima Centauri into the definition, and Sun and Moon would be planets too.

      The definition of a Planet is arbitrary, as there is no clear cut-off between white dwarfs, planets, comets, asteroids and space debris. All of them circle larger objects which radiate energy from nuclear fusion, but don't have nuclear fusion themselves. Whatever definition you come up with, it will be arbitrary again, and lots of people like you will complain and find holes or apparent holes in that definition.

      But the most useless definition of planets is "planets are objects we call planets". And that's what you are promoting with your insistence on the planetary status of Pluto.

      • But the most useless definition of planets is "planets are objects we call planets"

        It is a shame then that this is literally what the IAU did when they decided to create a "definition" of planets with the sole objective of preventing new planets from being discovered in the solar system. In doing so, it has pretty much ignored the fact that one of the main criterion in this "definition" doesn't have any accepted meaning. If they wanted to exclude plutoids they should have just set a mass cutoff and been do

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        What if the Moon was the same mass as Earth and they both revolved around each other?
        Would they both be planets, or both be moons?

        All that matters is that differentiating things by their definition serves some useful purpose.

        It seems like there are two or more groups of people wanting their definition because it serves _their_ purpose.

        a) don't call Pluto a planet because it's not large enough to live on, say the terraformers.
        b) call Pluto a planet because its mass is within X and Y, say the astrophysicists.

      • "all planets have some space debris in their respective Lagrange points."

        Lagrange points are gravitationally dominated by the primary and secondary body of the system. Therefore, objects at Lagrange points are not evidence that a planet has not cleared its orbit.

      • The underlying problem is that astronomy has been too lazy to develop its own nomenclature. Instead the astronomers of yore chose to steal from an unrelated field.

        As any astrologer would tell you, the seven classical planets are Moon, Sun, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn (listed in their general order of significance in daily affairs). Astronomy has gotten into trouble through appropriating these labels that have been in use for more than 3,000 years for its very different usage. In that process they

        • When I was studying astrology back when I was young and foolish (I'm older now) astrologers generally recognized Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto as planets, assigned signs to them (Aquarius, Pisces, and Scorpio respectively), and included them in horoscopes.

          • back when I was young and foolish (I'm older now) astrologers generally recognized Uranus

            Come on people, the joke's practically writing itself.

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • If Pluto's not a planet, and Earth isn't either, then there're 7 known planets, and this new thing maybe possibly MIGHT be number EIGHT.

      Fool: The reason why the seven stars are no more than seven is a pretty reason.

      Lear: Because they are not eight?

      Fool: Yes, indeed: thou wouldst make a good fool.

      -- William Shakespeare, King Lear

    • If Pluto isn't a planet, then neither is Earth

      It is the lay people who read headlines and ignore details who spout this nonsense. If you are trolling, please stop.

      The unwashed masses want to think of planets as the biggest space rocks. But scientists organize things by various properties and characteristics. There is a dividing line between the biggest space rocks that have the properties most people think of as planets, and the smaller space rocks that are still really big but have have different properties.

      If all you want in your classification of

  • Stop Deniers! (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Pluto IS a planet!

  • On/Off and dimmer switch for earth simulation?

  • it should have been called way out (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    at least it would have a catchy theme song
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

  • The quick and dirty tip is to use “farther” for physical distance and “further” for metaphorical, or figurative, distance. It's easy to remember because “farther” has the word “far” in it, and “far” obviously relates to physical distance.

  • Event Horizon - Does Planet Nine Exist? Featuring Dr. Konstantin Batygin

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

  • Voyager 1 is currently just shy of 145 AU from the Sun.

    FarFarOut may be the furthest natural object, but it isn't the furthest object.

  • . . . all my previous girlfriends have all referred to me as FarFarOut????

Slashdot Top Deals

Every nonzero finite dimensional inner product space has an orthonormal basis. It makes sense, when you don't think about it.

Close