Quote:
I dunno. I think that the size of an orbital region and the maximum size of multiple large bodies in that region will be related. Do you really think that a handful of Earth-sized bodies could co-orbit in an orbital region the size of our asteroid belt? They would have to be in a Trojan-like resonance at their L3/L4 Lagrange points.
While this is theoretically possible, it seems impossible given our current understanding of planetary formation. That may be why we see only collections of very small bodies (i.e. glorified rocks) at the Lagrange points of large bodies like Jupiter. Hektor is the largest, and it is far too small to be gravitationally round.
|
It's a extrapolation based on known ring systems like saturn, where two gas giants in a resonance orbit about 2 AU's apart, might shepard the gas/dust between them similar to the shepard moons of saturn, the dust would collese into something resembling asteroids, eventually up to planatary sized bodies.
If i remember from when I read about this there is a upper limit as to the number and mass of large bodies that could form and be stable enough not to colide into each other. It was around 10 earth masses, but can't remember the max number of them.
The supposition did mention this could only happen in a system where the planets formed at thier orbits, and didn;t migrate, which does make it very unlikely. But a remote posibity.
Quote:
I think the primary objection is that 2003 UB313 is just one member of thousands of belt objects, much like Ceres is just one member of the asteroid belt. That's the most common explanation and that is what excludes it from planetary status in this scheme.
Perception is important, but a classification scheme still needs to be consistent. It is just as easy to claim that perceptions would be bad if the IAU decided on a system that swelled the Solar System to 25 planets over the next decade.
|
It's just as likely that we'll only find 4 or 5 more of that size, and the rest will be asteroid sized snow balls. I don't think declassifing a planet to prevent a -possible- large quantity of them form being called the same is all that valid of a reason for an approach either.
Having 25 Belt Planets wouldn't really bother me, as we could differentiate them by the term Belt. Would work for both Kuiper objects and sheparded ones.
Something akin to 8 Dominant Planets, and 25 Belt Planets, makes more sense to me then 8 Dominant Planets and 25 Large KBO's.