Talk:Dwarf planet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

For the discussion on developing a strategy for naming dwarf planet articles, please see Talk:Dwarf planet/Naming

Archive

Archives
August 2006
September-October 2006

Contents

[edit] Lack of Clarity

Is a dwarf planet a planet that happens to be of type dwarf, or not a planet at all? For example, a berry is a fruit, but a fruit is not necessarily a berry; berry is just a subcategory of fruit. If it is not a planet, I a surprised there is no hyphen, because it dwarf looks to be an adjectives, and nothing more. It seems dwarf is a subcategory of planet, and this article does not explain this clearly, especially to lay people. Nonprof. Frinkus 20:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

"Dwarf planet" is that name of a type of solar system object. If the article doesn't say it's a subcategory of "planets", that's because that's not how it's defined. If it helps, think of it as one word that happens to have a space in the middle. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Is it good English to have two words work as one? With such an explanation, it probably would be difficult to get all school children to understand the precise difference between ‘planet’ and ‘dwarf planet’ and yet another possible contradiction in rules in English grammar. As for the science behind this (or severe lack thereof, real science is not a popularity contest and should not be determined by vote) ... “new planet definition that relegates Pluto to "dwarf planet" status is drawing intense criticism from astronomers. It appears likely that the definition will not be widely adopted by astronomers for everyday use, even though it is the International Astronomical Union's (IAU) official position.”. [from New Scientist Space] “"Alan Stern, who heads NASA's New Horizons mission to Pluto and works at the Southwest Research Institute in Boulder, Colorado, US, says the new definition is "awful". "The definition introduced is fundamentally flawed," he told New Scientist. "As a scientist, I'm embarrassed."”.


He goes on to say that only 4 of 8 objects in the IAU's new planetary definition meet their convoluted criteria (Earth and Jupiter for example, do not). He gives technical details for why that is. Another strong point was that “the new definition was pushed by people who are unhappy with having large numbers of planets” (very unscientific). All of that in addition that only astronomers were present, and less than 5% of the total IAU membership voted. Perhaps Richard Conn Henry likes to make a semantical (and only time will show how insignificant) victory to satisfy his own personal opinions.
So, given all of these numerous flaws, why does the main Pluto article now redefine Pluto as a ‘dwarf planet’ when frankly, I yet to see any real consensus (scientific or otherwise) nor any earth shattering supporting logic? Can I change that, or give both the title of ‘planet’ and ‘dwarf planet’ equal standing in all sections of that article?
Nonprof. Frinkus 08:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, first off, you should probably pose that question over at Talk:Pluto rather than here, seeing as how it involves changes to that article. Secondly, I don't think the article is "redefining" Pluto - the IAU redefined it. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, bases its definitions of "planet" and "dwarf planet" on the decisions of the governing body for a particular field - in this case, the IAU. That doesn't mean that the article can't cover the controversy - in fact, that would be an important part of the coverage, and it is well represented. However, there is a real difference between writing about a controversy and participating in it. By doing what you propose, you would cross that line. (Just my two cents.) --Ckatzchatspy 09:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Me controversial … moohey, sorry about that.  :-) Almost all of what I wrote there, was sourced in the same flavour (albeit not exact word for word due to copywrite) is not original by me, so I did not realize I was participating in it. And you are correct, this does not belong here … one question led to another, and I am not sure how to properly transition stuff over.
Ummm, is there a Wikipedia policy that states that each section of subject matter has only one official governing body to make decisions, and that this encyclopædia must be in lock step with that organization for the official take? Some of the complaints of scientists I mentioned there, is the fact some governing bodies could be much more narrow than the community directly researching that type of subject matter as a whole. Unless there is some official policy stating that one organization will be anointed master of each subject matter for official takes … does not Wikipedia participate in the controversy as well (by choosing sides for who gets top billing, even though both sides of issue might be represented when some areas)?
Nonprof. Frinkus 20:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

If a Dwarf star is a Star, should not a dwarf planet be a planet?

That's just a grammatical mistake, so it doesn't prove that a dwarf planet is a planet.

Nonprof. Frinkus 06:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)== Should this article explain why this definition is required? ==

Should this article on "Dwarf planet" explain the reasons why it is so important to have a separate definition for the term "Planet"? No where in this article does it seem to clearly justify the why this definition is so importantly required. Could I be wrong here? Nonprof. Frinkus 05:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't anyone have a clear answer here? That would be helpful for my own research and for inclusion in this article.  :) Nonprof. Frinkus 06:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Alternative Term

Is anyone else concerned that astronomers came up with the name 'dwarf planet' which is supposed to make things easier for the public and for schoolkids? Not only is it confusing to say that a dwarf planet is not a planet, but the name could make astronomers a laughing stock. Every smart ass kid in the classroom is going to say: 'Sir/Miss, dwarf planets, is that where dwarfs come from?' and all the kids will fall around laughing. Snow White and the seven Plutonians anyone? Somebody call Peter Jackson, his casting problems for The Hobbit (if it's ever made)are over - all he has to do is go to Pluto haha. It might well be a public relations disaster that would hold astronomers up to ridicule.

All joking aside, it is understandable that scientists like to have precedents for when they coin new terminology but 'dwarf planet' is not the answer. With all the talk of densities of rock and ice etc, the debate moved into the realms of geology and that is where the real precedents lie. Many terms in geology use the suffix 'ule' from Latin and Greek as a dimunitive. Here are some example- note that they have the relevant quality of roundness: Globe - globule; Sphere - spherule; Grain - granule; Node - nodule

Also of interest are some terms from biology. An 'ovule' is an unfertilised or undeveloped seed (from Latin ovum), and 'sporule' is a small spore. It may seem strange for astronomy to borrow from such a source, but with talk of stars being 'born and 'dying' etc, maybe it is not so strange.

How about 'planetule' to describe Pluto (?), Ceres et al. To the general public it would be easy to understand as meaning 'a very small or 'undeveloped' planet or planet like object'. It would square the circle of describing something that's like a planet, but doesn't make the grade to being a fully fledged one.

As to how to distinguish a planetule from a planet, that's another day's work, but at least it would solve the 'Snow White' problem!Neelmack 21:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Neelmack

Wikipedia:No orginial research. Michaelbusch 20:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I find the proposal very interesting, but I have to agree here is the wrong place to discuss it. You should contact your closest member of the IAU. I hope you will have success. Rgerhards 09:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I emailed several members of the IAU but got no replies. Does anyone know of a suitable website or forum where I can post my suggestion for discussion? Neelmack 19:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archive

I archived the talk from September-October 2006. RandomCritic 12:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] wether or not a dwarf planet is a planet.

i personally believe that dwarf planets should be considered planets because their relationship to planets is the same as that of dwarf stars to other stars and dwarf stars are considered stars. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.96.73.129 (talk) 18:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

According to this http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/dwarfplanet/index.html it isn't. Abtract 18:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Dwarf star means many different things: white dwarf, red dwarf, brown dwarf. A white dwarf weighs within a factor of ten as much as the sun, as does a red dwarf, and both fused hydrogen at some point. A brown dwarf is different: there is no hydrogen fusion, the masses are much lower. If you wish, the relationship between a planet and a dwarf planet is like that between the Sun and a brown dwarf: one important physical boundary in mass has been crossed, but another has not. Personal opinion is also not grounds for inclusion in Wikipedia. Michaelbusch 19:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Red dwarfs have a mass less than 1/3 of the sun--which is itself a yellow dwarf. But are we bere to discuss stars or planets? Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 17:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Solar System or Our Solar System

Currently, the second paragraph says:

The term "dwarf planet" applies only to objects in the Solar System.[2] and is quite distinct from "planet" and "small solar system body".

I would like to suggest changing this to

The term "dwarf planet" applies only to objects in our solar system,[2] and is quite distinct from "planet" and "small solar system body".

Yes, I am aware that "the Solar System" (with capital letters) refers to our own solar system, as opposed to any other solar system in the universe. However, the average man on the street might not be aware of such a distinction. Since the intent of this paragraph is to say that the term "dwarf planet" only applies to our own solar system, I feel that it is appropriate for us to make this point clearer in this one specific instance.

I had been bold and made this change myself, but was reverted by Ckatz. I'm therefore bringing the discussion to the Talk page. (Incidentally, Ckatz also restored the incorrect full stop before the reference marker, which I had replaced by a comma.) Bluap 19:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if it wasn't clear, but I think you misunderstood my edit summary. What I meant was that there is only one system that is properly referred to as "solar" - ours, the "Sol" system. There aren't other "solar systems", so using "our" would be incorrect for either "Solar System" or "solar system". It also means that when we say a term such as "dwarf planet" applies only to "the solar system", we are being specific. That was the basis for undoing your edit. (My apologies for not noticing the comma - minor changes in punctuation aren't easy to see in the diffs.) --Ckatzchatspy 19:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Ahh - I see that I was getting confused between solar system and planetary system. (Interestingly stellar system redirects to star system, while I would have thought that a redirect to planetary system might have been more appropriate.) I'll get my thinking cap on, and find a new way of wording those couple of paragraphs. Bluap 21:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
"Dwarf planet" … does this definition only apply to this (Sol's) solar system … and is not used for any other planetary star system found in space? I am seeking clarification, thank-you. Nonprof. Frinkus 06:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
As per the article (third paragraph), "As defined, the term "dwarf planet" does not apply to other planetary systems." Hope this helps... --Ckatzchatspy 06:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Oops, thank-you very much.  :) I thought that was an err, because I've been dumbly lost about the logical requirements for a new yet so awfully specific category, other than naming rock/ice balls to big to ignore. I will update my numbers, merci. Nonprof. Frinkus 06:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New dwarf planet

..According to BBC. See title: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6268799.stm

--TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the BBC made a mistake on the headline... I couldn't find any mention online about it being reclassified. Potentially, yes, but that dates back to the fall. --Ckatzchatspy 17:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
That article is very badly garbled (see Talk:2003 EL61). EL61 is not classified as a dwarf planet by the IAU. Michaelbusch 19:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eris' Mass

Can we get a citation for Eris' mass? I have not been able to verify this figure anywhere. All other sources say that it is unknown and astronomers are going to use the moon's orbit to calculate the mass. Notably, the Eris page does not give a figure, either. I'd love to be proven wrong; I just need a source. -- Joshua BishopRoby 00:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I just added the citation, to Mike's 2006 paper on satellites of KBOs. Michaelbusch 00:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I added it to the Eris article as well. Michaelbusch 00:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
From the cited article: "One faint source is seen near 2003 UB313 (Eris). ... We thus conclude that the source is a satellite moving with 2003 UB313. With only a single observation of the satellite of 2003 UB313, we cannot yet measure or constrain the mass of 2003 UB313, but we can estimate likely orbital parameters to aid further study." (emphasis mine) The article is about the sighting of the satellite, not the measurement of its orbit or the calculation of the dwarf planet's mass. -- Joshua BishopRoby 01:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Further in the article, they estimate Dysnomia's period as 14 days. I asked Darin Ragozzine, one of Mike's students, if they had an orbit and consequently a mass & density, and he told me they did, and referenced that paper. It may be that I mis-understood him with regards to the reference, but they have the period and the mass. Michaelbusch 03:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Alright, but you can't really cite the conversation that you had with an astronomer. I assume you mean the following passage: "If the semimajor axis is 14% greater than the current separation, and if 2003 UB313 has the size estimated by assuming an albedo and density similar to Pluto's (Brown et al. 2005a), the satellite will have an orbital period of approximately 2 weeks." They're not deriving the mass of Eris based on the orbit, they're deriving the orbit based on the mass of Eris, assuming Eris has the same albedo and density as Pluto, which is a mammoth assumption to make. Michael, can you provide a citation for the mass of Eris, not an estimate of the mass of Eris, or shall we put 'unknown' in there because the mass is, in fact, unknown? -- Joshua BishopRoby 17:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
They have the orbit now. I will check for more recent references. Note: we will never have anything other than an estimate for the mass of Eris or any other planet. Michaelbusch 18:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
The relevant paper would be M.E. Brown et al., 2007 in prep., which will be a paper giving the mass of Eris. It has not been published yet. Given this, we should place estimated tags (the mass and density given follow from the size and Dysnomia having a 14 day period. Presumably the paper will be more precise). Michaelbusch 18:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Michael, could you please check out the recent addition to Eris (dwarf planet) (specifically the new sub-section "Mass and Density"). I suspect it could use a rewrite, but as it pertains to what you're discussing here, you're probably better suited to check it. Thanks. --Ckatzchatspy 20:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I cleaned it up some. Hopefully, Mike will put out his paper giving the better mass value soon. Michaelbusch 20:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/w/a/Talk%7EDwarf_planet_e98c.html"