Talk:136199 Eris/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Gabby 2 What year?? 3 Name 4 Binary minor planet? 5 image 6 Discovery Date 7 Religious Significance? 8 Planet? 9 "Gabrielle_(Xena)" 10 Planet Name 11 Most distant objects? 12 Clarification of Naming Possibilities 13 Special symbol? 14 Periodicity 15 Quanor 16 When will it be named? 17 Classification 18 Persephone 19 Planet/Dwarf planet 20 can an admin please move it to 2003 UB313 21 pronunciation?? 22 Mass 23 Changing sites, changing cites 24 Clearing the Neighborhood

Gabby

Could someone add an infobox for the moon, Gabrielle? 132.205.93.88 00:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

See [[1]] 69.136.238.165 03:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

What year??

What year do you think this planet will have an official word name?? Georgia guy 23:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The IAU will decide by the end of August on its status and name. Will probably be announced in early September. Aquirata 00:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the IAU fully appreciates the urgency of this situation. --Dhartung | Talk 01:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

What urgency?!?! The planet/KBO is not going anywhere! --BerserkerBen 01:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The object does not have a hurry, nor does it disappear, but we the people on earth have a hurry anyway. If it takes a long time, the informal name "Xena" will be more and more established. Media is often already using it as if it was official. Besides we are plain impatient. One more planet is a big thing for those interested in astronomy. /BIL 12:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Well according to the IAU it is a dwarf planet, among others Ceres and Pluto recognized already, and Eris is the official name as of 13 Sept 2006. 69.136.238.165 03:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Name

I thought this planet already had a name - Sedna (the Inuit goddess of ice or something). Michaelritchie200 19:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Sedna is a completely different object. Check 90377 Sedna. It's a different Kuiper Belt object that was discovered earlier and is still much smaller than Pluto. bob rulz 19:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It's kinda funny how the object immediately acquired a identifying word which is universally recognized by the general public: "Xena." And yet, reports that it is named Xena are "totally incorrect." As are reports that it is a planet. In fact now even Pluto is no longer a planet. Funny things, these names are... Timothy Horrigan Timothy Horrigan 03:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

That's why 2003 UB₃₁₃ should be named as soon as possible to get the name right (though it seems it may take some time, worst case scenario is that it'll be named in the next IAU meeting in 2009). To put things in perspective, it took decades Uranus to get its name. Neptune's situation was slightly better, but it either wasn't named immediately.--JyriL ^talk 00:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Binary minor planet?

This is in the category Binary minor planet. Is the moon actually big enough for that? It seems a rather big stretch. 132.205.93.88 04:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

image

Is this image the moon of Xena (Gabrielle), or is it Xena and Gabrielle?

It is a very poor resolution (what's the point with that?) artwork image of the pair.--JyriL ^talk 20:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Discovery Date

Wouldn't the Discovery Date be January 5, 2005, not October 2003? The image was taken in 2003, but the "planet"/SDO wasn't recognized to exist by the team in any form until January 2005. Some moons were discovered by the Voyagers years after the fact, but they don't bear the "discovery date" of the day their photos are taken, they bear the discovery date of when they were realized to exist --Thirdmoon 15:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Probably, but the date we list here is the one listed by the MPC. The article makes this clear in any case.

Urhixidur 23:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Religious Significance?

I know that this is nothing to do with the science of 'Xena' but are there any groups out there claiming that there is any religious significance to people finding this planet. For example, is anybody linking it to any old prophecy?

perfectblue 14:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

not that I know of ST47 12:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is more about the discovery of Sedna, but we might be able to expect astrologers to offer a similar response to UB. I did a Google search for "astrology and UB313" and got loads of results. Tfleming 18:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I just googled "Bible" and "UB313" and got this site. sure there are plenty more such sites out there... Tfleming 18:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Planet?

I heard on the IRC that they decided this was a planet - is that true yet ST47 13:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

No, but it will be according to the new proposed definition of planet. The IAU will vote on it on August 24.[2]--JyriL ^talk 13:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

No. Now classified as a a dwarf planet, as are Pluto and Ceres so far. 69.136.238.165 03:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

"Gabrielle_(Xena)"

"Xena"; "Ceres", "1 Ceres".

Hilarious & silly.

Miles O'Brien [ Miles_O'Brien_(journalist) ], cnn, speaking with Neil deGrasse Tyson, announced this mnemonic:

"My Very Educated Mother Just Sent Us Nine Pizzas,..."

"Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto,..."

"...'chovies eXtra."

Hopiakuta 20:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Planet Name

Xena? They should name it Chuck Norris. FireSpike 22:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• I say Planet ZZ-Top, because it spins, and all this science is about to put me to sleep. Žena Dhark…·°º•ø®@» 02:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The article needs an etymological discussion: Who or waht was Eris? Kdammers 08:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

See here and here for more information. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Most distant objects?

The article states:

"2003 UB313 orbits the Sun in a region of space known as the scattered disc accompanied by at least one moon; the pair are currently the most distant known objects in the solar system."

I thought Sedna was more distant. --Aranae 04:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Sedna's usually more distant in its orbit than 2003 UB313, but it was discovered at its closest point to the sun, which is closer than 2003 UB313. --Patteroast

The statement is grossly ambiguous. It ought to be removed, or rephrased to account for its ambiguity. Simply put, Sedna is located at about 90 AU, which is closing to its perihelion. Eris, however, is closing to its aphilion at about 97 AU. Which means right now, it's farther from the sun than any other body. If we look at the solar system with respect to any time reference, Sedna's at its aphilion the farthest known object in the solar system. Echternacht 04:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Eris is not the most distant object in orbit around the Sun, or even the most distant known object. There are many known comets that are further out.Michaelbusch 05:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The image accompanying the section on "Orbit" suggests that 2003 UB313 actually crosses to within Neptune's orbit during part of its revolution. Does anyone know how accurate this portrayal is? Perhaps this could also influence the naming. Perhaps Charon can be renamed Pershepone as a companion to Pluto and 2003UB313 named Charon named after the boatman that took people from the world out to the Hades. yeah, yeah, long shot, I know... Tfleming 17:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the image is that 2003 UB313 is not in the ecliptic, so for the time that it looks as if it's inside Neptune's orbit, it's actually high 'above' (or 'below') it. It's hard to explain in words, but you can play around with the Java applet at http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/orbits/2003ub313.html Henry^Flower 18:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I suspected as much. Regardless of its inclination to the ecliptic, does anyone know how close UB comes to the Sun? It is ever closer than Pluto or Neptune? (I've long understood that Pluto does this, but maybe someone can confirm that for me as well...) Tfleming 14:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

UB313's is 37.77 AU from the Sun at its closest approach, which is still beyond Neptune's orbit. The Tom 14:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Clarification of Naming Possibilities

First of all, all of the names of the planets are Roman names, although both Uranus and Pluto are also often considered Greek; however, it doesn't make sense to say that the aforementioned planets are named after the Greek gods, as it wouldn't fit with the rest of the planets. Although I prefer the Greek names, I would only support the naming of planets after Greek deities if the other planets' names were changed (Jupiter to Zeus, Saturn to Kronos, Venus to Aphrodite, etc.).Therefore, it would make much more sense to name the planet Proserpine. An alternate spelling, which would avoid the inconvenience of having a planet and asteroid with the same name, is Proserpina, the latter spelling being the one used by Thomas Bullfinch.

Keeping the name Xena would be strange, to say the least, considering that Xena has no mythological background and was invented for the sole object of profit, and so it makes it rather crass to place her name amongst the name of the supreme Roman deities, not to mention possibly offensive to Hellenic polytheists. If people argue for naming the planet Xena for the sake of equal gender rights or something similar, remember that there are many other important Roman goddesses to name it after (Proserpine, for instance).

Of course, there are other deities to name Xena after. First of all, in keeping with the pattern established so far, I think it would be best to name planets after Roman deities, instead of, say, Inuit or Native American deities, as given the large amount of divine beings in Roman mythology (including ones beyond the Olympians). Because we haven't run out of them yet, it would make sense to name Xena after a major deity. And because there are currently seven planets named after male deities (with Earth being gender-neutral)out of nine, or eight out of twelve in the new line-up (the non-male names being Ceres, Earth, UB313, and Venus, with a total of only two female names out of twelve), I believe that it should be named after a female deity. My favorite, as I have previously emphasized, is Proserpina (as Proserpine is taken). However, there are other possibilities; Gaia (or rather Terra, her Roman equivalent) would be awkward and confusing, as Gaia is Mother Earth, but Juno/Hera is a possibility, as is Diana/Artemis, as both were often presented as "cold" goddesses, although not to the extent that Proserpina was. There is also Minerva/Athena; the distant planet could be representative of deep thought that was Minerva's domain. Vesta/Hestia is another possibility, as the dignified Vesta was constantly trying to distance herself from her feuding, dysfunctional family, much as the new planet seems to be distancing itself from the other planets. Outside the category of the Olympians, we could also include Ops/Rhea, the mother of the Olympians, as she distanced herself from her husband Saturn/Kronos after he began devouring their children, much like the planet is far away from Saturn. Trivia/Hecate is yet another possibility, as Trivia was the dark goddess of witchcraft, crossroads, and the harvest moon, and was a major deity.--The Great Honker 05:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Self-Correction: Vesta wouldn't be a good name for the planet, as it is already the name of a space object that would be on the IAU's watchlist of possible planets.--The Great Honker 18:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Rhea is a moon of Saturn, and calling the planet "Trivia" would elicit guffaws not unlike those from the planet with the obscene name.

But that aside, Wikipedia is not the place to voice such suggestions, as they cannot be used to improve the article. Petition the IAU if you want anyone to do anything with them (but they probably have their own ideas). JRM · Talk 10:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's fun and interesting to speculate here, and this kind of information will likely be inserted into the page next month. :P I like Proserpina too, and the mythology fits nicely especially with her being grouped with Ceres as well as the underworld, except that her mommy Ceres would be so much smaller that her.--Hawkian 18:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• If Rhea is a moon of Saturn, then that obviously wouldn't be a good name for UB313. However, I don't think that Trivia would be a horrible name, given that she was a very powerful goddess, not to mention an underworld deity who, with Proserpina, Ceres, and herself, respectively, formed the Robert Graves maiden-nymph-crone triad, and was herself a triple-goddess, being represented as physically three-sided. And how do you petition the IAU anyway?--The Great Honker 18:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  Presumably you'd need to be a member of the IAU, or know someone in it. My statement was shorthand for "your suggestions are probably not heard anywhere, but if they are heard anywhere, then certainly not here". But Wikipedia has been the origin of weirder things, so who knows. JRM · Talk 21:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• The discoverer gets to suggest a name, not the public. More to the point, suggesting names here is off topic. --Dhartung | Talk 22:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• Another note that is admittedly somewhat irrelevant: Uranus is supposed to be pronounced "yur-annus," with the emphasis on the first syllable, so the joke doesn't work anyway.--The Great Honker 20:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  Hmm, nice try. How the word is supposed to be pronounced isn't very relevant, though. The pronunciation that elicits titters from English adolescents is rather more widespread. JRM · Talk 21:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• The Great Honkermade a good statement, but in Latin languages, Earth is Terra, thus a Roman goddess. If the new categorization of planets is accepted, both Proserpina and Proserpine can be used. The definition will also remove the "minor planet" term from asteroids, they will be just space objects aka junk aka LTO (life-threatening objects) :P

the twelve olympians (greek): Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, Ares, Hermes, Hephaestus, Aphrodite, Athena, Apollo, and Artemis are always considered Olympians. Hebe, Helios, Hestia, Demeter, Dionysus, Hades, and Persephone.

• Thus UB313 can be named (using Roman names): Vulcan, Minerva, Apollo, Diana and Bacchus and the obvious Proserpina. All fantastic names from famous and interresting gods. I hope those that are considered planets will have a greco-Roman name, thus names like Quaoar are interresting but not for planets - planets were named like that because of religion and tradition, these aren't just names. UB313 can also be named Minerva because it was because of it that men finally figured out what is a planet. Bacchus should be given to a planet that has the weirdest orbit, because it is the drunken god: maybe to Sedna. Vulcan to one that has criovulcanism or is reddish. etc. Keep astronomy interesting. --Pedro 22:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think Proserpina would be a very cool name, whether it actually becomes a planet or not. bob rulz 22:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• • I forgot Juno, given that 3 Juno will be classified as a minor body of the SS. Thus four girls and 3 boys of Mount Olympus need a home planet. -Pedro 00:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

26 Proserpina is already taken. Hopquick 04:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Special symbol?

Does "Xena" have a special symbol to represent it like most other planets have?? If so, please add it to the enttry!--Sonjaaa 16:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Xena is neither a real mythological figure, nor is it the name of this planet. bob rulz 16:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The IAU may or may not decide on an astronomical symbol for 2003 UB313 if it decides whether it is a planet or not. That has not been disclosed. It has been disclosed that the body will not be named Xena, no matter how it may be classified. That should be clear from this article. In addition, the IAU will not decide on an astrological symbol, obviously; the IAU are scientists and the planetary classification question has nothing to do with the superstition known as astrology. If astrologers want to use a symbol the IAU decides on (if they do), then that is their prerogative. Derek Balsam 16:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/multimedia/display.cfm?IM_ID=167

It should be named Chuck Norris, and the symbol should look something like this: . FireSpike 01:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think astrologists will use it. Every science or pseudoscience must be based on something. Since astrology is not based on observations or scientific calculations it must be based on tradition. For that reason they have usually not even included Uranus. Some may, some use intuition more than tradition. BIL 13:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Look, I'm not going to argue that astrology is accurate or anything, but could you at least be accurate ABOUT it, if you're going to talk about it? "They have usually not even included Uranus" is wrong - the only time they did NOT was before its discovery. They use it now; it "rules" Aquarius. Astrologers simialarly do not "use intutition more than tradition", though I find it odd that you state that, given that your previous argument seemed to state "they only don't count these planets because it's not in their little worldview", which would seem to contradict it. Anyway, they actually have formulas to calculate horoscopes and such - not that it's alleged effects are based on anything save for folkloric associations, but they DO use formulas, NOT just "intuitiion". I'd argue that using traditional formulas to arrive at a conclusion even without knowing what the hell they were based on is FAR more "traditional" than it is "intuitional". Similarly, you can't expect them to except every known astronomical object in our system, as there are thousands and thousands of them and most are comparitively small or newly-discovered like UB313 is - and therefore either not considered large enough to have a significant effect, or not yet included because they haven't gotten the chance to address it yet (though it would be interesting/funny to see them start accepting just about everything and start arguing that only someone with "considerable knowledge" could decipher it all, heh). Despite some astrologers' claims that it's an "art", it's actually a combination of folklore and mathematical pseudo-science that semi-led to the creation of astronomy, similar to the no-longer-used alchemy, which was the precursor to modern chemistry. Again - it uses formulas based on planetary paths and folkloric associations, NOT intuition. I'm not saying that what they do with these calculations is science (obviously, it's not an empirical science), but your comment very much implies that they do not consider newly-discovered objects in their calculations, which is simply NOT true, otherwise why would Neptune (which was NOT an anciently-known planet) "rule" Pisces or Pluto (only discovered this century!) rule Scorpio, or, contrary to your implications about Uranus, Uranus "rule" Aquarius? The VAST majority of modern astrologers use the more newly-discovered planets in their little calculations, and I'm sure these large, Pluto-sized-or-larger objects in the Kuiper Belt will considered for inclusion as well. Who knows, maybe it'll finally be 100% accurate once they're counted in :P (/jk). 63.21.80.43 19:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Periodicity

This user has been adding comments to several articles about (his?) a new bodes law. His claims of notability have been in the form of saying that his webpage has been up for a while (though no claims of traffic and external links are made). Just as an FYI, here's his edit history [3] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mckaysalisbury (talk • contribs).

It seems that 71.215.54.11 and PlanetCeres are of like mind on this issue, as both are repeatedly inserting this material into numerous articles. The articles include Planet, Definition of planet, 2006 redefinition of planet, 1 Ceres, 2003 UB313, and Titius-Bode law. PlanetCeres also deleted Mckaysalisbury's comment above, which has now been restored. --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Quanor

What happened to it being referred to as Quanor? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tfleming (talk • contribs) .

The name is Quaoar, not Quanor, and it refers to a completely different space object.--The Great Honker 18:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

See 50000 Quaoar. --Dhartung | Talk 19:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

When will it be named?

Any estimate on when it is expected to receive its final and official name?--Sonjaaa 17:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• We will find out on the August 24th. If it is deemed a planet, by the adoption of the planet definition proposal, it will receive its name right away. Tachyon01 20:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

No it won't (probably). But let's hope they hurry the decision. If it becomes a planet, I don't know how they will proceed—IAU hasn't named a planet yet. If the draft proporsal is accepted, they'll better to figure out the proceedings. If it doesn't, Mike Brown et al. already have submitted a name for it to the committee which supervises the naming of minor planets. Without the definition of a planet controversy, it would have been named a long ago. In fact, Mike Brown thought it will be declared a planet within months after the discovery announcement. To save media from using the horrible designation 2003 UB₃₁₃, he gave it the (temporary) nickname "Xena".--JyriL ^talk 22:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• IAU hasn't named a planet but will name this one (if it is one), not Mike Brown. Tachyon01 is correct. --Pedro 22:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I meant that. Mike Brown can suggest the name only if it doesn't become a planet. However, the IAU won't name it during this meeting (if I understood it correctly).--JyriL ^talk 23:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Classification

2003 UB₃₁₃ is presently classified as a scattered disk object (SDO)...

This sentence is somewhat misleading. Even if it becomes a planet, it still remains a SDO (like the planet Pluto is a KBO).--JyriL ^talk 12:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The article is full of wording like that: "is presently classified", "The object currently has the provisional designation", etc. The words "presently" and "currently" are superfluous and misleading. The sentences are just fine -- true, accurate, and verifiable -- without those words. The words actually make the article less accurate by implying a prediction of future events, as you rightly point out.Derek Balsam 14:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• 16:41, 22 August 2006 Derek Balsam (Talk | contribs) (→Classification - Brown et al. formally call it a "scattered Kuiper Belt object" in their paper.) who is Brown to formally classify something?! "scattered Kuiper Belt object" as far as I know is just an informall catagorization. --Pedro 16:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

"Who is Brown to formally classify something?" Not sure I follow you. By 'formally classify', I simply mean that Brown et al. used the term "scattered Kuiper Belt object" in a published, peer reviewed scientific paper (The Astrophysical Journal, 643: L61–L63, 2006 May 20 - See References section of main article), which is the standard as far as we at Wikipedia should be concerned. For readers of Wikipedia, that is a formal statement of science to which we should not add weasel words which could give an incorrect impression to laypeople. "Informally" and "unofficially" suggest usages such as the name Xena, which is a good example of informal usage outside of science proper. But characterizing 2003UB313 as a scattered disk object is not informal at all, as evidenced by citation to a verifiable scientific source.Derek Balsam 16:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Persephone

There's no way this planet won't be Persephone if it becomes planetary. I mean, Ceres, Pluto, and Charon are all in the story of the marraige of Persephone and Hades, and Ceres is Seph's mom. It just seems odd that they haven't thought of a name yet, and this one makes most sense to me. -Kamikazetomato 04:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I heard that it can't be called Persephone, because of the asteroid 399 Persephone, orbiting outside Mars. Two minor planets can't have the same name. The same problem for several roman names. If UB313 is not a proper planet, there is more freedom in naming. BIL 21:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that it has been determined whether dwarf planets will follow the planet rules or the minor planet rules. In fact, the IAU calls it a "new category", so this is still an interesting story. [4]--Dhartung | Talk 08:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there a Romanized version of Persephone then?

The Roman name for Persephone is Proserpine, alternately spelled Proserpina. In addition to those, Kore was a Greek name often used for Persephone.--The Great Honker 18:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Just kidding, but I did hear on CNN recently that they did intend to make the dwarf planets have similar names, just like how Jupiter's moons each are named after a character in a myth largely involving Zues (perhaps even his mistresses, which is why there are so many moons.) -Kamikazetomato 04:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

399 Persephone and 26 Proserpina are taken. Game Over. Hopquick 04:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Proserpine and Kore are still possibilities :-) -- Nbound 04:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Planet/Dwarf planet

If the phrase "dwarf planet" contains the word "planet", then what makes the term not a planet?? Any clarification on terminology?? Georgia guy 16:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

You're being too literal about it. The IAU says those terms are what they are. Planets and Dwarf planets are two different things. Kind of like "holes" and "black holes". Derek Balsam 16:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The IAU discussed calling "planets" instead "classical planets", meaning both types would be "planets", but that language was voted down. --Dhartung | Talk 19:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

can an admin please move it to 2003 UB313

Article needs to be moved to 2003 UB313!! "Xena" is just a nickname for now.--Sonjaaa 21:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it should be at 2003 UB313. Whatever is decided on, please settle on something. I've been trying to fix double redirects only to find myself having to start over again before I can even finish. Unless you're going to move it back to 2003 UB313 where it started and belongs, please discuss a move like that here first. --Aranae 21:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

This object will never, never, be named "Xena".--JyriL ^talk 21:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I move-protected the article now. It was being moved back and forth without any discussions that I can see. Shanes 21:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

pronunciation??

What is the most correct pronunciation? Is it "two thousand and three, yoo bee, three one three" or "... three hundred and thirteen" or ?--Sonjaaa 04:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I've heard both, as well as "yoo bee three-thirteen." I think Brown used three-one-three in an interview I heard, if that's of any help. The Tom 21:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps an IPA pronunciation of Eris, the now official name, would ease some confusion. 69.136.238.165 03:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Mass

Is the mass really unknown? It is easy to calculate the mass from the distance to the sattelite and from the period of the satellite's orbit.--Nixer 13:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Calculation would be easy, but we don't know the orbit of the satellite...--JyriL ^talk 14:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems to require more accurate measurement of the orbital inclination, especially for such a distant object. 69.136.238.165 03:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Changing sites, changing cites

Note 8 currently links to Mike Brown's page. The note is attached to an old quote of his. However, the quoted bit has now been deleted from the page. I think it'd be nicer to change note 8 into a {{cite web}} template, with a proper access date. --Kjoonlee 18:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Done for note 8. --Kjoonlee 10:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Clearing the Neighborhood

It's orbit is almost completely void of other objects, unlike Pluto. I wonder if the IAU has to eat some crow... 70.177.71.206 01:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Its in the scattered disk, its planetary discriminant is about .10 - thus not a planet -- Nbound 02:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Are these underestimates for Pluto and Xena due to our limited knowledge of what's in the Kuiper Belt and beyond? I suspect we have a reasonable idea of what massive objects are in the vicinity of Ceres, but we are still determining what's in the vicinity of Pluto and Xena. --Aranae 02:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

We know for FACT that pluto shares its orbit with many large objects... check out the page on the kuiper belt. As for Xena in the scattered disk, there are plenty of objects out the already discovered that would void its status, and we havent even found anywhere near all of them -- Nbound 05:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You may have missed my point. I agree that there are many objects within Pluto's orbit. What I'm saying is that many of these objects were discovered very recently and there are likely to be more on the way. We know even less about what's going on way out at Xena. The region around Ceres, on the other hand is much better mapped. I'm curious if these values are likely to decrease much (separating Pluto and Xena even further from the 8 planets) or if the values will stay roughly the same even with more objects discovered? --Aranae 05:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

yeah id say they'll fall even more as more and more objects are found due to better tech and/or time -- Nbound 06:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)