Jump to content

Talk:(148209) 2000 CR105

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Orbit

[edit]

From User:66.82.9.80, who inserted it into the main article:

On your article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/90377_Sedna, it states "Another object, 2000 CR105, has an orbit similar to Sedna's but a bit less extreme: perihelion is 45 AU, aphelion is 415 AU, and the orbital period is 3420 years." The problem being in this current article it says that the orbit of 2000 CR105 is 3175 years as where the Sedna page staes the orbit as 3420 years. I just thought you should know.

--Christopher Thomas 05:35, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Orbit elements based on a limited numbers of observations are shaky and improve over time. The articles took the orbital elements from different estimates. Aligned Eurocommuter 18:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Distance

[edit]

The 2000 disambiguation page says this object is the third most distant object in the solar system, but the actual page says the fourth most distant. Which is it? -- 65.215.33.194

As of 2008, according to JPL Horizons, *current* AU distance from Sun:
Eris: 96.78
Sedna: 88.24
2007 OR10 85.48 (Will be further from the Sun than Sedna in 2013)
2006 QH181 82
Buffy: 58.16 (Buffy will be further from the Sun than 2000 CR105 until mid January 2011)
2000 CR105: 56.40
2000 OO67: 21.08 (came to perihelion on April 18, 2005)
See also: Talk:90377_Sedna#Farthest_from_the_sun.3F and http://home.comcast.net/~kpheider/Sedna2076.txt
-- Kheider (talk) 21:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exoplanet Probability

[edit]

WikiArticle: 1% chance of a outer planetary exchange
Abstract: 10% chance that Sedna was captured from the outer disk of the passing star (??)
PDF: Thus the total probability to produce at least one object with a Sedna-like orbit in the Solar System is reasonably large, ~5% to 10% for an indigenous object and ~1% for a captured object. 2000 CR105 is 2–3 times more likely to be a captured planet than Sedna.

So why does the abstract claim a 10% chance and the PDF claims only a 1% chance? Is the abstract a typo? It would make sense that there is a 1% chance that Sedna was an exoplanet and a 3% chance that 2000 CR105 was an exoplanet. I can't see 2000 CR105 having a 30% of being an exoplanet. Or am I missing something in the numbers or wording? -- Kheider (talk) 01:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 04:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nemesis??!

[edit]

The Nemesis hypothesis has been rejected as inconsistent with IR observations. The mention of this fantasy body, while possibly of historical interest, does NOT belong in this article.72.172.11.64 (talk) 17:59, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. -- Kheider (talk) 00:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on (148209) 2000 CR105. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on (148209) 2000 CR105. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:09, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:(148209)_2000_CR105&oldid=1194591609"