URGHHHH !!!

I just took a "science quiz" at msn.com about Astronomy. Out of 10 questions, I only missed one. OK, so I don't know that there are 88 constellations. But, on the other hand, is there weren't anything more man-made, than what people have determined as proper grouping of stars.

I DID get all the other questions right.

and here is why I am putting this posting here: MSN GOT A QUESTION WRONG!! Some guys at Berkley (goes to show you how discoveries go unnoticed nowdays) discovered a planet beyond Pluto back in October -- as I remember. That makes 10 not nine.

http://encarta.msn.com/quiz/QuizResults.asp?QuizID=42

Here is my report card according to MSN

You gave everyone the answers? edit your message so other people can try the quiz. It's not too tough I got 10/10 thanks to your 88 constellations hint, fortunatly I didn't read the rest of your message before I took the quiz.

I think according to the latest standards Pluto/Charon are too small to be considered planets. You were wrong, there are only nine.

__________________
'Sir........, I don't like these numbers.'
'Then hire somebody that can change them!'
("`-/")_.-'"``-.,,
\. . `; -._( );, `)
(v_,)' _ )`-. \ ``'`
_.- _..-/ /((.'
((,.-' ((,/

You misremember. It's not called a planet, yet. In fact, one of the big topics of discussion in these parts is whether or not Pluto is a planet. As of this posting, Pluto is still considered one of the nine planets, according to the IAU.
Does it sound like they are confusing circumference with diameter a bit?
Not only are there 88 constellations, there are 88 keys on a piano. So, it's a twofer.

How do you define diameter and circumference in the Excited States?
They are taking an average circumference/pi and calculating an average diameter.

__________________
'Sir........, I don't like these numbers.'
'Then hire somebody that can change them!'
("`-/")_.-'"``-.,,
\. . `; -._( );, `)
(v_,)' _ )`-. \ ``'`
_.- _..-/ /((.'
((,.-' ((,/

And in fact, question 9 covers this very issue.

No! it is not Charon.

I had had a sinking feeling someone would make that mistake.

Alright, well, apparently the little write up about that other body cannot be found easily. It had some sort of wacky name like Zepper or Oblezea. But I also thik it was very small and probably part of the Oort Cloud anyway.

True. The object you're probably thinking of as a "tenth planet" is 2002 LM60, unofficially dubbed "Quaoar". It's a Kuiper Belt Object about half the size of Pluto.

It made the news because it was the largest K.B.O. discovered to date, but what I think is most interesting about it is that its orbital semimajor axis is 42 AU, which is only a couple of AU longer than Pluto's.

However, since we're not even sure that we want to keep calling Pluto a "planet" any more, no one is calling 2002 LM60 a planet. Right now, it's just King of the Kuiper Belt Objects.

D'OH ! You beat me to it.

My co-worker just told me it was Quaoar and sent me the link about it on National Geographic's web site.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...07_quaoar.html



Ah - ha but you see, if MSN's quiz counts Pluto then your point is mute.

The IAU still considers Pluto a planet, and does not consider Quaoar a planet--Quaoar may have a tenth of the mass of Pluto. It has just over half the radius, and it's probably less dense.

Pick up a gallon of milk, then a soda can--that could be the difference between them.

that's MOOT!

DJ

I thought question 7 was a bit difficult. If you compare the range of stars from largest to smallest, Sol really comes out rather far on the small end of the scale. Not the smallest, but not really in the middle either, I think.

__________________
...And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. --Sir Bedevere

Then why do you care?

Do they mean diameter or mass? In any case, I'd have thought the exact opposite to you. By far the vast majority of stars are of classes K and M (orange and red dwarves - check out the nearest 100 stars, for example), so the Sun is way up the scale, surely in the top 20%, more likely 10%, at least).

Sorry - I have a pet niggle over this. The text-books are always saying that Sol is an average star, but it's always struck me that they're just parroting this - somewhere there's an original text that said it and started the meme going. OTOH, given our opposite reactions, perhaps it's best to compromise on average - works with the Mediocrity Principle, after all.

__________________
Fin
Skep-ti-cult® member #488-28303-790

Is North Carolina one of the Excited States?
No, definitely not. Those are values measured through the Earth, on the equator, and from pole to pole. Circumferences would give different values.

I guess that's the problem. They don't really define what they mean by size. I took it to be physical dimension and was thinking about it in a direct linear scale of diameter. Line them up, and the red supergiants far outscale the puny little G K and M class stars.

If you use an averaging system, like you describe, then sure, the Sun is much larger than the average sun. But I didn't get that from the question, since it only talks about size and not number. It just says:

Well, comparing the sun to the largest makes it look very tiny. It's comparatively closer in size to the smallest ones.

If we're talking about mass though, it would fall about in the center, I guess (since the scale is from about .01 to 100 stellar masses. But then again, it doesn't say mass in the question.

__________________
...And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. --Sir Bedevere

The USA at one time wished to distance itself from European (read world) squabbles and alliances. They were still forced into both world wars. Since then, they have realized that they are a/the major world power, and must behave accordion-gly.
The White House has had to make some pretty rough descisions since 1776, we only started in the early 1980s.
We did not have a constitution until recently. We were governed under a British law called the BNA Act. Many of us wish to be fully independent of the Monarchy, many of us don't.
There has been a recent controversy in Canada about our assistance in controlling rogue nations. Our federal policy on the subject was not a major issue in the last election, and therefore not mandated by the people. Our eastern leaders have since decided to unilaterally declare a position on each instance.
We have always been a cautious people, we rarely get excited en masse. We are in our infancy and hope that the decisions we make today will be understood by history.

I apologise for using the term on this board, and therefore having to write the preceeding as an explanation of the definition.


The polar diameter can easily be measured by the first postulate of Euclid, A to B. The equatorial diameter may need to be taken from an average, since any two points around the equator have different A to B distances.

__________________
'Sir........, I don't like these numbers.'
'Then hire somebody that can change them!'
("`-/")_.-'"``-.,,
\. . `; -._( );, `)
(v_,)' _ )`-. \ ``'`
_.- _..-/ /((.'
((,.-' ((,/

de nada
They use the geoid, and take the degree two term, which is an oblate ellipsoid so that the equatorial diameter is well-defined. In essence, though, an average.