An object with multiple Earth masses could hardly be classified as a dwarf planet.
225 AU is a long way, and the volume of space to clear goes up quadratically with distance; this object would have 50,000 times more space to clear than does Earth. The orbital period also goes up with distance [edit, reply is right that it's the 3/2th power], so so does the time between interactions with any particular object.
Multiply those together and you would have an object more than cubically (3.5th power) less effective than Earth at clearing its neighborhood over time, such that it may not have happened in the lifetime of the solar system.
who said it has finished the job? has the correct paper work be filed? according to the permits in the galactic construction offices, the work is not scheduled for completion for a few hundred more millennia.
By Kepler's Third Law, isn't it proportional to the square root of the cube (3/2th power) of the distance?
According the the wrong-headed AIU definition. So, yes, _Jupiter_ could be a dwarf planet, if it hasn't cleared it's orbital neighborhood for some reason.
Weird definition since it prevents deciding if an exoplanet is a planet or a dwarf planet.
It smells like a compromise proxy measure for: orbital stability, in a reasonably circular orbit, plus rule out Pluto.
Maybe there is some deep reason for using that measure, but it is not obvious.
Though there are a lot of people that present the IAU definition as if it were simply the will of "science," if you look at the 2006 debate about it amongst scientists, it was actually fairly contentious.