Talk:Ceres (dwarf planet)/Archive 4

message: Ceres (dwarf planet), Dwarf planet and 2006 definition of planet these three articles are interrelated yet inconsistent in what they refer to Ceres as. 
Specifics;
* 2006 definition of planet -- This category would exclude Ceres, which does not lie beyond Neptune's orbit
:: This refers to Plutoids, not to dwarf planets. Ruslik (talk) 06:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You meant that Makemake was not mentioned here? I added it. Ruslik (talk) 06:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The FA articles dont clearly distinguish the difference of definitions between Ceres and Pluto, Makemake & Eris as indicated in the 2006 definition of planet. Gnangarra 05:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reworded the "2006 definition of planet" article to address these concerns. Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 06:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The edit improves 2006 article but my concerns is more with this and Dwarf planet where they dont address the distinction of the subcat Plutoid. Gnangarra 06:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I checked the articles and they are OK, in my opinion. Ruslik (talk) 06:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Check the last paragraph in the hitory part. Nergaal (talk) 15:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistancy Concern 

message: I'm changing it from the plain manila, if an admin or someone whose been a major contributor to the article objects, go ahead and change it. --IdLoveOne (talk) 23:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox bar color 

message: it's a small detail, but can someone add in the simple fact that Piazzi named this dwarf planet after Ceres because it was the patron goddess of his native Sicily. 
Also it could be mentioned that he discovered it while observing from Palermo, Sicily.
Spettro9 (talk) 03:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any refs? I'm digging up that Ceres was the patron of Enna, not Sicily. kwami (talk) 22:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  2 missing references to Sicily 

message: I'm not sure if there's a way to do it (or a need, for all that), but I get the sense the "in Latin" was meant to suggest a different pronunciation (which it had in the less Italianate Classical Latin). Is there a way (& desire?) to show this? TREKphiler hit me ♠  21:34 & 21:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For Latinate names, there are two basic approaches to pronunciation: a literary anglicized version, as you might expect in Shakespeare, and a more Latinate one. So, for example, some astronomers pronounce "Io" -oh, and some pronounce it -oh. However, there are several conventions for how to pronounce un-anglicized Latin using English phonemes, and past experience has shown that choosing any one of them will spark edit wars over the "correct" Anglo-Latin pronunciation (as if there were such a thing) as opposed to all the others which are "wrong" (generally because their professor or pastor said so). In the case of "Ceres", the c might be pronounced /k/, /ts/, /tʃ/, or /s/, and so on with the rest of the letters. Since most people who want to do this already know how, it's easiest just to give the Latin orthography and let them choose the convention they prefer, whether that's a reconstruction of Classical Latin, Ecclesiastical Latin, botanical Latin, or whatever. (I'm assuming you know the conventions, Trekphiler; I'm writing more for our audience.) kwami (talk) 22:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe not the conventions, but I was taught Latin (yes, taught, in HS; in retrospect, German would've been more useful... ;p) to use certain pronunciation, so it'd come out "care ace", & I was asking on behalf of those like me (both of us =]) as well as those who think President Sheen's Latin was fine. (It made me cringe.) Nor do I want to encourage edit warring. Heaven knows, language has been enough of an issue some places; Latin's a dead language, no need to resuscitate it.  TREKphiler hit me ♠  13:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Absconde illegitimo''? 

message: I, like many others I assume, lack the scope of reading numbers unless put in comparison with something I know. I have no direct citation for exact diameters of Spain, France, and Germany, but on Google maps it shows it to me as around 980km wide from widest point. If you measure from the mid section of Spain (removing Portugal's diameter) it comes to around 940km). While Wikipedia discourages original research, I thought in the spirit of making the article more common-knowledge friendly I'd put this piece of information in there. Mkdwtalk 19:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but get it right. Madrid to Berln is nearly 2000km. 82.1.62.101 (talk) 14:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't say capital to capital. It's the width, not the point to point diagonal length across the its x and y axis. Mkdwtalk 19:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I see, but I doubt that I'll be the only one confused by that comparison.82.1.62.101 (talk) 10:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diameter 

message: Someone with a more direct and verifiable reference might update the article, assuming the article below pans out as more than just wishful thinking:
"New Lander Could Probe Dwarf Planet Ceres For Life"  Lee Pullen Astrobiology Magazine SPACE.com.  This is evidently a proposed polar lander.  http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20090416/sc_space/newlandercouldprobedwarfplanetceresforlife;_ylt=AhVVZ2ebu618Czx50io.Vzms0NUE
Tomligon (talk) 18:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Mission? 

message: In the main article, there is a sentence: "However, there is a chance that Ceres formed in the Kuiper Belt that was captured by the asteroid belt."  This is a typo, I think; the Kuiper Belt has not been captured by the asteroid belt.  I'd like to change this to: "However, there is a chance that Ceres formed in the Kuiper Belt and was later captured by the asteroid belt."  However, since it's protected, I can't.  Can anyone help?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by MPM-Wikihelper (talk • contribs) 13:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Shimgray | talk | 14:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Mike Brown mentioned the IAU meeting and "Is it possible that in the early solar system things from the Kuiper belt got mixed out to the asteroid belt?" on his 2009-08-09 blog with the answer of No... -- Kheider (talk) 17:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a study here which estimates "a few to ten percent" chance depending on the model; I'm not sure who Brown's quoting as having told him a categorical "No" there, or exactly what it comes from, so I'm not entirely confident we should drop the comment for now. Shimgray | talk | 17:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying we should drop it.  But a year later it does appear that perhaps the odds of a large body migrating from the Kuiper belt to the asteroid belt are dropping. -- Kheider (talk) 00:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trying to add a minor edit to main article. 

message: Since it is protected (why?) could someone add the pronunciation? I'd suggest pointing out that it sounds like the word "series". 70.232.86.117 (talk) 18:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is in the article... -RadicalOne---Contact Me 19:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The main article contains no guide to pronunciation. 

message: congrats editors and contributors for making it featured article. --Bigsuperindia (talk) 02:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  congratulations 

message: --Dojarca (talk) 16:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends on the context. Probably intended to describe vapor that contains water and ammonia. I don't see it mentioned in the current version of the article though. Hiberniantears (talk) 06:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Already corrected:--Dojarca (talk) 23:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is 'hydroxide water vapour'? 

message: : Another possible protoplanet, Vesta, is smaller; it suffered a major impact after solidifying, losing ~1% of its mass.
Huh?  How is the second point relevant here?  Vesta is smaller than Ceres by a heck of a lot more than 1%.  —Tamfang (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno how going into that much detail about Vesta is relevant here, but Vesta lost 1% of its mass in an impact; the 1% has nothing to do with Ceres. --Patteroast (talk) 23:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vesta 

message: :"Mathematically, this means determining a conic section in space, given one focus (the sun) and the conic's intersection with three given lines (lines of sight from the earth, which is itself moving on an ellipse, to the planet) and given the time it takes the planet to traverse the arcs determined by these lines (from which the lengths of the arcs can be calculated by Kepler's Second Law). This problem leads to an equation of the eighth degree, of which one solution, the Earth's orbit, is known. The solution sought is then separated from the remaining six based on physical conditions."
If the equations are set up to obtain the conic section describing the orbit of an observed body such as Ceres, then how can the orbit of the Earth itself be a solution to these equations? It seems not to make sense. 81.129.128.129 (talk) 02:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree this passage is confusing, and needs some work.  I think it is trying to point out that both the orbit of Ceres and the orbit of Earth are involved, because Earth is the platform from which Ceres was observed.  The orbit of Ceres was to be determined, the Earth's orbit was already understood, and both orbits are modeled as ellipses.  CosineKitty (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

text: The known data are a series of lines-of-sight joining Earth to Ceres at known times.  Earth is necessarily on such lines, thus Earth's orbit is one of the solutions.  —Tamfang (talk) 06:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing statement 

message: Some one can explain by math the method which Gauss invented to detect Ceres's positons? 222.252.102.20 (talk) 16:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gauss's method 

message: Why is the Titus-Bode Law described in the text as an "abandoned theory", bearing in mind that similar relations are also found in the satellites of Jupiter and Saturn? The radius of the planetary part of our solar system is, so far as we know, around 40 AU. If we allow Bode a predictional accuracy good to say, 0.1 AU on average, then we can divide the solar system into 400 of what we might call "Bodal Units". Now... place 400 tokens into a hat, each consecutively numbered, and then draw out one token for each of the planets. What are the chances that, randomly, you will draw all of the correct numbers (one for each planet)? Millions to one!!! Very similar mechanism to the National Lottery!!! Does anyone know if there are any plans to exploit the probable ice deposits on Ceres? The low gravity and the probable availability of H2 and O2, together with Ceres' relative proximity, might make for easier and cheaper spaceflight, whereby spacecraft en route to the outer solar system could stop off there for victuals, thereby meaning that they wouldn't have to be so heavily loaded to begin with.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.207.211 (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I do agree in part with one point here: to call Titius-Bode an "abandoned theory" is inaccurate because it never was a theory. —Tamfang (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ceres and Bode 

message: As I was visiting this site, I read the above section and my immediate response was "and WHO CARES...?"  With a (journeyman level) background in astronomy, it is somewhat obvious to me that you would be able to see solar transits of the inner planets from Ceres - IF YOU LIVED THERE.  However I am wondering why this information is 1) listed at all and 2) with such detail that someone actually entered the transit years for the planets as if this trivial information wasn't already esoteria to the nth degree to begin with. Also the link is to someone's software and appears to be a blatant commercial insertion, since the linked page says zero about transits, Ceres, or anything else beyond how the program works.  Therefore my suggestion is that this section be deleted as trivia and as a somewhat obvious advertisement. Ckruschke (talk) 13:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I am curious how you found the ref/link to be "commercial". I was just able to download the software for that link without paying anything (thus, not "commercial" by definition). Of course, as a user of Linux only, I was unable to actually use the software . . . but that is irrelevant, as there are plenty of open source alternatives for us Linux users. In any case, I am not sure why anyone would have a problem with this information. Even though no human lives on Ceres, one might wish to know how the rest of the inner plants appear if one were to be on the surface of Ceres. I vote that the information remain (but, maybe change the reference/software to any other open source program out there that can do the same calculations). --Thorwald (talk) 14:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Other than JPL Horizons, Solex, and Gravity Simulator are the best programs out there for gravitational n-body calculations.  The Sky and Celestia are better for visual observers more than gravitational interactions. Of those programs only The SKy costs money, and it is mega-$$$.-- Kheider (talk) 17:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess you'll have to forgive the fact that I don't work in the industry and have therefore never heard of the program - obviously this was not a discussion about the program...  Also I was using the term "commercial" as meaning an advertisement - I saw that the software was free.  Overall I "don't have a problem with info" - just thought it was useless trivia, which is why I put it in the Talk section rather than simply deleting it.  However, my original point remains that I don't think this section adds to the overall subject matter, but instead falls in line with the opinion that many have about Wikipedia - that he info is either incorrect or is useless garbage (or both). However, if others have a strong opinion about keeping it - again - that is certainly fine with me. Ckruschke (talk) 17:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I am neutral on the subject of Transits of planets from Ceres because this is a FA and to confirm it one would have to download Solex and be shown how to use it.  I added a Solex reference to Mercury (#88), but I gave a blow-by-blow on how to reproduce the results, thus creating a form of Wikipedia:Verifiability. I have never simulated transits with Solex. -- Kheider (talk) 19:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

text: I'm with Ckruschke that this section probably shouldn't be there, but not because of the "who cares?" thing, but because "why only Ceres and Pallas?". If it's worthwhile to have here, shouldn't it also be on the pages for Mars, Earth, Neptune, Callisto, Hygiea, etc.? I think a better structure is to have a separate transits page (one page containing info for all bodies, maybe as tables) that can be linked to in the "see also". Actually looking, Astronomical transit is very nearly it (see table at bottom), just needs whatever non-planetary perspectives anybody wants to add.  Tbayboy (talk) 15:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the point of "Transits of planets from Ceres" section? 

message: Where does the surface area cited in the article come from? I tried several online calculators for the area of an ellipsoid, using the polar and equatorial radii given, and got 2851881 sq km. Also the precision shown is unwarranted.--agr (talk) 13:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I trimmed the area number shown to 3 significant digits. I also fixed the conversion to sq mi, which was way off.--agr (talk) 23:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surface area 

message: I feel there is a problem with giving orbital characteristics at a given (arbitrarily chosen) epoch for bodies such as Ceres. The characteristics change so greatly and so quickly with time that these values are soon out of date and thus cannot be used as the basis for accurate calculations. Would it not be better to give the Proper Orbital Elements, as listed on such sites as AstDyS? (Space Mechanics group, Dept of Mathematics, University of Pisa, Italy. Website is  http://hamilton.dm.unipi.it/astdys/ ). AstroSteve (talk) 16:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems this is embedded within the "Infobox planet" template so I've added the same thread to its talk page. Let's see what happens! AstroSteve (talk) 22:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orbital characteristics