"I think we're coming to a point where we can give 2007 OR10 its rightful name."
Anyone suggesting Planet McPlanetface will be shot.
Unfortunately Hades has already gone - they gave it to Tau Ceti 3.
Astronomers have used observations from the Kepler space telescope and the Herschel Space Observatory to determine that the trans-Neptunian object "2007 OR10" is bigger than previously thought, and now ranks third in the solar system's dwarf planet size league table, behind Pluto and Eris. The distant body was first spied back …
This post has been deleted by its author
"Puff, the Magic Dragon", Jedit, before everything has a reference to this name.
P.S. Often we hear of gases 'escaping to outer space' but they really can't go that far. Heck, we still don't know if there's another planet at the Solar System far boundary and yet can 'observe' distant galaxies, nebulae and black hole dances.
It's sad when even scientists fail the 'Significant Figures' test. They used to teach this in Grade 10. It's that basic.
Corrected: "...a diameter of around 1,300 kilometers (800 miles)..."
"1280 km" (and "795 miles") implies a level of precision that probably cannot be supported even just considering the non-spherical irregularities inherent in such a small body. Let alone the error bars.
Clearly and indisputably it's a 'Significant Figures' FAIL.
Why are significant figures significant here?
First of all, let's first assume that the measurements were done in metres, in which case the precision conversion to miles is appropriate.
Second of all, we can assume that the number is accurate to 4 significant figures. If it were fewer, there would technically be a bar across the last zero.
Finally, it's the mean diameter, and there are known accuracy deviations. The errors in this measurement are +/- 210km, just not stated in the article. The diameter lies between 1070km and 1490km.
AC: "...The errors in this measurement are +/- 210km..."
Then it's not "1280 km".
It's either "1300 km"... ...Or it's "1280 +/- 210 km" (perhaps followed by some further statistical clarifications)..
They rounded their measurements to three significant figures. So they did round. They just failed to round their figure CORRECTLY.
One SF would be too few. Three SFs is too many. Two SFs would be about right.
Significant Figures isn't complicated. It's annoying that so many haven't got the first clue about it.
My thought too. Without wishing to go all 'OMG! Aliens!' over this, can anyone enlighten me as to why an object of the size of Haumea, which must be well above the size at which gravity would pull it roughly spherical, is shaped like that?
Would rapid spin really explain the elongation? Is it believed to be (relatively) young?
"Oddly-shaped Haumea is one of the fastest rotating large objects in our solar system. It completes a turn on its axis every four hours. The quick spin elongated the dwarf planet into the unique shape astronomers discovered in 2003."
http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/haumea/indepth
This post has been deleted by its author