6 ms·

I dunno, '700 AU' gelled for me instantly, '15 times the distance to pluto' doesn't even make sense given pluto's orbit isn't anywhere near circular.

by NikkiA 1y ago

doubletwoyou 1y ago
I don’t think the vast majority of people will have a good sense of how far away the standard gas giants and pluto are from the sun in terms of AU.
AIPedant 1y ago
It makes even less sense for Earth because Earth's orbit is near-circular, whereas Planet 9's hypothesized orbit is highly eccentric, more so than Pluto. Most people don't know off-hand that Pluto is ~40-50AU from the sun, so 700AU is hard to conceptualize.
- LeifCarrotson 1y ago
  And Neptune orbits at 30 AU with very low eccentricity, "of course." https://xkcd.com/2501/ https://xkcd.com/2501/
  - ben_w 1y ago
    I was just thinking of this XKCD comic specifically. Most people won't even have the slightest idea what 1 AU is. Most people know less about most topics (including space) than the original ChatGPT (3.5) did — probably only people who at least started a degree with a space sciences module are likely to know more than 3.5, and I expect plenty of space.com readers to be enthusiastic amateurs rather than professionals. That said, I do I expect the average reader of space.com to know what an astronomical unit is, but even so I don't expect them to know the average orbital distance of Pluto. But is even that assumption my quartz?
- dragonwriter 1y ago
  > Most people don't know off-hand that Pluto is ~40-50AU ~30-50AU if you are referring to the range of orbital distance.
  - AIPedant 1y ago
    No, I was referring to the range of my recollection when I read Wikipedia earlier this morning while writing the parent comment :)
- zamadatix 1y ago
  They're all horrible to conceptualize because people don't commonly deal with how far even something like the Earth to the Sun is, I don't think there is any winning answer here - at least an AU is consistently defined and maybe slightly more likely to be familiar, but it's still just about as crap to be honest. Side note: Apart from AU already being defined as average distance and not current distance, the distance referenced is how far out the proposed object is now, not its general orbital parameters. At that orbital distance 23 years of motion isn't going to be much change in distance even if it's in a hyperbolic orbit.
  - AIPedant 1y ago
    My point was not about intuiting the distance, it's about what the solar system looks like qualitatively, as a cartoon with orbits drawn around the sun. Most people have no idea if 700AU is closer than Pluto, a little further than Pluto, or much further than Pluto. 15x the distance of Pluto is much more direct.
    - zamadatix 1y ago
      What's the benefit of communicating something is 15x the distance of Pluto if people are expected to have at least a ~15x error in how far away Pluto is supposed to be? At that point it's all nonsense, nothing is relevant anymore. Might as well say something useful for those who do have a clue about the solar system. Hell, it's been nearly 2 decades since Pluto was itself planet 9. Just bringing the name up in a discussion about planets is going to cause more confusion.
      - setr 1y ago
        15 time further than the furthest once-planet is fairly intuitive to say really freaking far; you don’t need to know how far pluto is, just that it’s the furthest.
      - AIPedant 1y ago
        > Might as well say something useful for those who do have a clue about the solar system. The source we are discussing is space.com, a website which frequently mentions Star Wars and whose stated mission is to "transport our visitors across the solar system and beyond through accessible, comprehensive coverage of the latest news and discoveries." My comment was about communicating this research in a way that better fits "most readers" of space.com. If you think qualitative orrery models are beneath you and want to exclude those people, then you are not the target audience. Just go read the actual paper.
- d0mine 1y ago
  To give perspective to 700AU: the nearest star is ~270 kAU i.e. the object is at ~0.26% (close to the Sun) https://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/features/cosmic/nearest_star_info.html https://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/features/cosmic/nearest_star_i...
Waterluvian 1y ago
On its own it’s a bit of a useless number. You’d have to know how many AU Pluto is to understand context. But if you got “15x further than Pluto” you have context without needing to know any other trivia-style numbers.
- wqaatwt 1y ago
  AU is not exactly a trivia style number. It’s one of the most standard units of measuring distance between different bodies in space. Also it’s not like distance to Pluto is a meaningful number either since it’s extremely variable . AU at least is fixed
bryant 1y ago
New horizons launched 9.5 years before it reached Pluto, and your average reader who has an interest in Planet 9 will likely know it took New Horizons about that long. 15x means no one alive today will see a mission that reaches the planet, and that's more accessible for most readers per above.
- Retric 1y ago
  New horizons is hardly the fastest possible probe over the next 30 years. (9.5 * 15 / 3 = 47.5) + 30 years = 77.7 so some teenagers could live to see a probe reach it even without hypothetical life extension technology.
nandomrumber 1y ago
The length of 2.1 trillion Olympic swimming pools. Or 698 trillion bananas.
- nmeofthestate 1y ago
  It helps if you picture Planet 9 orbiting on the surface of a sphere with the surface area of 6.6349344e+18 Waleses.
- MisterTea 1y ago
  I only understand American football fields :-<
rkagerer 1y ago
1 hour at Warp 4
- ashoeafoot 1y ago
  Are we there yet?
- cdaringe 1y ago
  Ahem, cite your sources? At low warp we’re generally BLASTING by stars!
  - rkagerer 1y ago
    700AU = 105 billion km (approx) Warp 4 = 109 billion km/hr Per https://i.imgur.com/Su1RB.jpeg https://i.imgur.com/Su1RB.jpeg https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Warp_factor https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Warp_factor also lists values in a couple charts that check out.
- mrguyorama 1y ago
  Original formula or Next Generation formula?
  - rkagerer 1y ago
    ToS, but as it turns out I believe it works for both.

I dunno, '700 AU' gelled for me instantly, '15 times the distance to pluto' doesn't even make sense given pluto's orbit isn't anywhere near circular.

by NikkiA 1y ago

I dunno, '700 AU' gelled for me instantly, '15 times the distance to pluto' doesn't even make sense given pluto's orbit isn't anywhere near circular.

doubletwoyou 1y ago

I don’t think the vast majority of people will have a good sense of how far away the standard gas giants and pluto are from the sun in terms of AU.

AIPedant 1y ago

It makes even less sense for Earth because Earth's orbit is near-circular, whereas Planet 9's hypothesized orbit is highly eccentric, more so than Pluto. Most people don't know off-hand that Pluto is ~40-50AU from the sun, so 700AU is hard to conceptualize.

LeifCarrotson 1y ago
And Neptune orbits at 30 AU with very low eccentricity, "of course." https://xkcd.com/2501/ https://xkcd.com/2501/
- ben_w 1y ago
  I was just thinking of this XKCD comic specifically. Most people won't even have the slightest idea what 1 AU is. Most people know less about most topics (including space) than the original ChatGPT (3.5) did — probably only people who at least started a degree with a space sciences module are likely to know more than 3.5, and I expect plenty of space.com readers to be enthusiastic amateurs rather than professionals. That said, I do I expect the average reader of space.com to know what an astronomical unit is, but even so I don't expect them to know the average orbital distance of Pluto. But is even that assumption my quartz?
dragonwriter 1y ago
> Most people don't know off-hand that Pluto is ~40-50AU ~30-50AU if you are referring to the range of orbital distance.
- AIPedant 1y ago
  No, I was referring to the range of my recollection when I read Wikipedia earlier this morning while writing the parent comment :)
zamadatix 1y ago
They're all horrible to conceptualize because people don't commonly deal with how far even something like the Earth to the Sun is, I don't think there is any winning answer here - at least an AU is consistently defined and maybe slightly more likely to be familiar, but it's still just about as crap to be honest. Side note: Apart from AU already being defined as average distance and not current distance, the distance referenced is how far out the proposed object is now, not its general orbital parameters. At that orbital distance 23 years of motion isn't going to be much change in distance even if it's in a hyperbolic orbit.
- AIPedant 1y ago
  My point was not about intuiting the distance, it's about what the solar system looks like qualitatively, as a cartoon with orbits drawn around the sun. Most people have no idea if 700AU is closer than Pluto, a little further than Pluto, or much further than Pluto. 15x the distance of Pluto is much more direct.
  - zamadatix 1y ago
    What's the benefit of communicating something is 15x the distance of Pluto if people are expected to have at least a ~15x error in how far away Pluto is supposed to be? At that point it's all nonsense, nothing is relevant anymore. Might as well say something useful for those who do have a clue about the solar system. Hell, it's been nearly 2 decades since Pluto was itself planet 9. Just bringing the name up in a discussion about planets is going to cause more confusion.
    - setr 1y ago
      15 time further than the furthest once-planet is fairly intuitive to say really freaking far; you don’t need to know how far pluto is, just that it’s the furthest.
    - AIPedant 1y ago
      > Might as well say something useful for those who do have a clue about the solar system. The source we are discussing is space.com, a website which frequently mentions Star Wars and whose stated mission is to "transport our visitors across the solar system and beyond through accessible, comprehensive coverage of the latest news and discoveries." My comment was about communicating this research in a way that better fits "most readers" of space.com. If you think qualitative orrery models are beneath you and want to exclude those people, then you are not the target audience. Just go read the actual paper.
d0mine 1y ago
To give perspective to 700AU: the nearest star is ~270 kAU i.e. the object is at ~0.26% (close to the Sun) https://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/features/cosmic/nearest_star_info.html https://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/features/cosmic/nearest_star_i...

Waterluvian 1y ago

On its own it’s a bit of a useless number. You’d have to know how many AU Pluto is to understand context. But if you got “15x further than Pluto” you have context without needing to know any other trivia-style numbers.

wqaatwt 1y ago
AU is not exactly a trivia style number. It’s one of the most standard units of measuring distance between different bodies in space. Also it’s not like distance to Pluto is a meaningful number either since it’s extremely variable . AU at least is fixed

bryant 1y ago

New horizons launched 9.5 years before it reached Pluto, and your average reader who has an interest in Planet 9 will likely know it took New Horizons about that long. 15x means no one alive today will see a mission that reaches the planet, and that's more accessible for most readers per above.

Retric 1y ago
New horizons is hardly the fastest possible probe over the next 30 years. (9.5 * 15 / 3 = 47.5) + 30 years = 77.7 so some teenagers could live to see a probe reach it even without hypothetical life extension technology.

nandomrumber 1y ago

The length of 2.1 trillion Olympic swimming pools. Or 698 trillion bananas.

nmeofthestate 1y ago
It helps if you picture Planet 9 orbiting on the surface of a sphere with the surface area of 6.6349344e+18 Waleses.
MisterTea 1y ago
I only understand American football fields :-<

rkagerer 1y ago

1 hour at Warp 4

ashoeafoot 1y ago
Are we there yet?
cdaringe 1y ago
Ahem, cite your sources? At low warp we’re generally BLASTING by stars!
- rkagerer 1y ago
  700AU = 105 billion km (approx) Warp 4 = 109 billion km/hr Per https://i.imgur.com/Su1RB.jpeg https://i.imgur.com/Su1RB.jpeg https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Warp_factor https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Warp_factor also lists values in a couple charts that check out.
mrguyorama 1y ago
Original formula or Next Generation formula?
- rkagerer 1y ago
  ToS, but as it turns out I believe it works for both.