The only people on top of it are the astrologers? You'd think 2007 OR10 would be bigger news among astrogeeks, but no, it's astrology all the way. I still can't find who discovered it. Does anyone know?

__________________
There is a growing tendancy to think of Man as a rational, thinking being, which is absurd.- Marvin the Martian.

It's gotten to the point where careful investigation is needed just to tell parody from reality. I think that means reality is broken.- Noclevername.

What is 2007 OR10?

__________________
smile, and the Universe smiles with you

Y'see, for astrogeeks it's just another rock.

For astrologers, it means they have to recalculate all their astrological tables. That's a huge hassle.

Never mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_OR10

__________________
smile, and the Universe smiles with you

Nah, they'll just do what they've always done -- make something up as they go along.

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

I'm kind of curious now. I'll have to go investigate what Astrologers are going to do with the KBOs. They all spend 20 to 50 years per sign, and are retrograde almost half the time. Quite a few go way outside the ecliptic, straying from the usual twelve signs... and there could be hundreds of them. I wonder how they process all of this.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

It's kind of amusing actually.

__________________
smile, and the Universe smiles with you

Looking at the database:

2007 OR10 2007 07 17 675 M. E. Schwamb, M. E. Brown, D. Rabinowitz

How does this thing have a magnitude of 1.9 (from the Wiki)? Isn't that almost as bright as Mars?

Edit: actually I see they said "absolute magnitude" which makes even less sense. Isn't that calculated as it would appear at 10 Ly or something?

- J

There's a separate absolute magnitude scale for solar system objects, corresponding to how bright they'd look from the Sun if their distance from same was 1 AU.

__________________
Science is like sex. Sometimes something useful comes out, but that is not the reason we are doing it.
-- Richard Feynman

You know what would be funny.
What if in a thousand years after our civilisation collapses (any reason really) the only people who have the real and complete list of objects in the solar system are Astrologers.
The reason being they carefully collected all the scientific data and incorporated it into their charts. This would make a nice sci-fi movie plot.

__________________
This whole internet thing is probably not a passing fad.-Ronald Brak
While speech might be free, consequences cost.-Doodler

Highly unlikely. There are currently more than 100,000 numbered objects in the main and Kuiper asteroid belts. The only scientific data that astrologers ever use is the positional data -- and only one-third of that, the ecliptic longitude, they throw away the latitude and distance coordinates.

Of what possible value can astrology be if it throws away two-thirds of its data from the start?

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

Eish!
I was having meself a nice little fantasy until you came with all your facts and science.

I wasn't really suggesting that we should look up to Astrologers to be our "data keepers", I was actually trying to be funny (haha funny).

__________________
This whole internet thing is probably not a passing fad.-Ronald Brak
While speech might be free, consequences cost.-Doodler

*I* thought it was funny!

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

It makes me wonder. What if there really is a Planet X out there we can't see?

Yet.

__________________
smile, and the Universe smiles with you

There was. It was Charon all along.

If it gets seen, it will keep astrologers very busy recalculating for a while.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

Glad to be of service!
It may still be amusing as a movie plot, or as a scenario for a movie. Let's not forget that many things much less plausible than this have been made into big box-office movies!

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

Teaching how to avoid to collapse beneath a burden of thinking ?

__________________
If everyone had even a basic grasp of scientific principles, this planet would be a better place (Phil Plait)

Die Lücke, die wir hinterlassen, ersetzt uns vollkommen [The gap we will leave behind will take our place entirely] (Carl Heinz Schroth)

1 + e^i*pi = 0

Perhaps!

But then, why not go all the way and resort to phrenology, cheiromancy, cartomancy, any of the other -omancies and not be burdened by thinking at all?

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

I was always a fan of spatulomancy, but these days it's difficult to get a good goat for every question I need an answer to.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

Well at least they have another exuse for why they usually get it wrong. But come to think of it, if they usually get it wrong because they dont have all necessary heavenly bodies in their calculations then they dont have much hope of ever getting it all straightend out. Oh Dear what will they do!

__________________
"A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again."

Alexander Pope, 1709

Oh, you loved me, you really really loved.
I'm going to be rich! Hollywoood here I come (I have a big fat script in hand).

__________________
This whole internet thing is probably not a passing fad.-Ronald Brak
While speech might be free, consequences cost.-Doodler

Could you please use words which I can find in my dictionary?

Ah. I see I can find them on Wiki !
And there you can even find the term astrology paranoia

__________________
If everyone had even a basic grasp of scientific principles, this planet would be a better place (Phil Plait)

Die Lücke, die wir hinterlassen, ersetzt uns vollkommen [The gap we will leave behind will take our place entirely] (Carl Heinz Schroth)

1 + e^i*pi = 0

Astronomers have not done a halfway decent job of processing and cataloging KBOs either.

Astronomers take measurements and ultimately compute orbits for KBOs, whereupon they are given a number and possibly a name. Spectra are taken for the larger/brighter KBOs. This, I think, is more than a "halfway decent job of processing and cataloging KBOs".

What would you consider to be "decent job of processing and cataloging KBOs"?

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

"What would you consider to be "decent job of processing and cataloging KBOs"?"

One that recognizes that KBOs large enough to be spherical are also planets, thus being "dual class" objects.

Or, any processing and classifying NOT done by the IAU.

Ah, so it's just a terminology issue. From your statement, I thought you had a technical concern.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

And why is this so much more important than determining their orbits, discovering satellites of these objects and (where possible) their spectra?
Do I detect a bit of hate here?

What does it matter who does the dissemination of orbital and other data gathered by others, as long as it is done accurately?

My own two cents about the definition of a planet: I think it should be according to mass. Anything that orbits the Sun (and not some other body that orbits the Sun) with a mass greater than 10^-8 of the Sun's mass is a planet, anything with a mass less than that is not. Avoid complicating the definition with difficult to verify criteria such as "clearing its orbit".

And the number I quoted is negotiable; set it to 10^-7 or 10^-7.5 if you like.

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

"And why is this so much more important than determining their orbits, discovering satellites of these objects and (where possible) their spectra?"

All of these factors are important. It's just that the IAU chose to ignore the issue of hydrostatic equilibrium. Ignoring any of these factors in cataloging these objects is a glaring omission.

"Do I detect a bit of hate here?"

Not hate, just skepticism and a bit of sarcasm. The IAU has not done a very good job regarding KBOs this far (including violating its own bylaws in the 2006 vote and rushing through a definition that is vague and makes no sense, then following it two years later with the universally disliked term "plutoids").