User talk:Tbayboy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome[edit]

Hello Tbayboy, and Welcome to Wikipedia!Bouncywikilogo.gif

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.


Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Need help?

How you can help:

Additional tips...

Tbayboy, good luck, and have fun. -- KuwarOnline Talk 14:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

anon. edits to data[edit]

Hey,

Sorry about this, but I generally revert any unexplained, anonymous-IP change to data. Too many vandals running around changing technical details they hope no-one will notice – and sometimes the damage is not noticed for several years. — kwami (talk) 17:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Is cool. It's what I thought, too, when I first saw it. I'm ambivalent on which number we actually want there, but we should be consistent across all pages (not just Saturn) with whichever choice. Tbayboy (talk) 18:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Haumea ref[edit]

Hi,

This doesn't make sense. A 2011 measurement can't be ref'd to a 2009 publication. If the actual source ref's Brown et al, then I think either the date of the measurment should be changed to the original measurement, or the new ref should be use with the explanation that they came up with a new interpretation of B's data. — kwami (talk) 16:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The Dumas ref was 2011. It does not give a new measurement, it just refers to the 2009 measurement by Ragozzine. The 2011 VLT parenthetical is incorrect, I'll remove it. I should have seen that! I got caught up in the ref without looking at the rest of it. The VLT refers to the spectroscopy mentioned in the Dumas paper, but it has nothing to do with the size estimate used in that paper. Tbayboy (talk) 07:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

DP[edit]

Reverted you because your edit summary didn't make sense to me, per Talk. But I'm not defending the Sedna entry either, and it does seem rather unlikely that we have a useful mass estimate for the region. — kwami (talk) 19:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

formatting[edit]

Question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy. — kwami (talk) 20:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Brown's possible dwarf planet list[edit]

Thanks for your message. A look on Brown's page showed me a number of object sizes were reestimated again... Ambi Valent (talk) 01:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

MansourJE (talk) 16:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)YES dwarf galaxies not dwarf planets.

Mansour jourabchian esfahahani

@Tbayboy: Hi there, just to let you know that I updated "Brown's categories – Number of objects" in List of possible dwarf planets, and that the number in all categories significantly increased since your last update earlier this month. -- Cheers, Rfassbind -talk 02:05, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll do an update this week. Note that the numbers didn't really change that much: the table on the page did not keep a cumulative count like the table on Brown's page. E.g., Brown's "possibly" count also includes those of all the higher categories, whereas the wiki-table counted only those that in "possibly" but not int "probably" (i.e., the difference between Brown's "possibly" and "probably"). So the numbers should now be 10, 13, 25, ..., versus the old 10, 16, 22. Tbayboy (talk) 18:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
@Tbayboy: thx for the reply. Unfortunately, I didn't notice it since without a reply/ping I most likely miss the entry in my over 300 articles-long watch-list (well, maybe I should say "possibly" rather than "most likely", hehe). A week ago, I was puzzled when counting the records on Mike Brown's website. I was looking for 23 highly-likely records, but only found 13. So now I know why... 23 also includes the 10 objects of the nearly-certainly category! Damn, that's the most stupidest classification system I came across in my entire life. I'll add a foot-note to the wikitable, to people know about the discrepancy. Otherwise every sane Wikipedian (I hope) will attempt to update it. Sorry for any inconvenience I may have caused. -- Cheers, Rfassbind -talk 02:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
@Rfassbind: Sorry about the non-ping. I didn't know the etiquette. I didn't set up the little count table, so I don't know why it's different from Brown's. Both ways are useful, depending what you're looking for. Maybe it should have both, in separate columns. Tbayboy (talk) 02:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure, that a few months ago I updated the table with the figures I found on Brown's website. So now I'm puzzled: what does the table display? If it's not Brown's cumulative count, then it must by the incremental one. So when you generate a new version of the main table, then you surely updated the little one, right? Otherwise I would have to count all rows in the main table to know the incremental figure... I think both metrics are too much. The incremental one would be best. However, only if you're able to update the figures when you generate your main table. -- Rfassbind -talk 03:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
@Tbayboy: In addition, thinking about the "incremental vs. cumulative count", there is something that bothered me since the first time I saw the article. A cumulative count is used for "nearly certainly" category objects and the five IAU-recognized dwarf planets. Why label officially recognized DP's as nearly certainly. Since you (correctly, I think) differ from M. Brown's cumulative methodology, then why not be consistent all along, i.e. add a new category that could be called "recognized". Just sayin' - Cheers, Rfassbind -talk 18:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
@Rfassbind: Brown doesn't like the idea of the IAU having a list — it's why he started his DP list page in the first place — so that's why his classification doesn't acknowledge them. Tbayboy (talk) 02:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
@Tbayboy:I don't think there is a problem. Brown's classification is AOK, just that the IAU-DP's should be listed as a separate category, since on wikipedia, a IAU-recognized DP is a DP, not just highly likely. After all there is no obligation to follow Brown in each and every detail - you didn't either when using the incremental count (or isn't that your idea after all?... see above). -- Cheers, Rfassbind -talk 03:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
@Rfassbind: The incremental count is not my idea, nor adding that table to the wiki. Personally, I think the page is too Brown-centric, and wouldn't have included that table at all, maybe not even his valuation scheme (no peer review, and we know there are errors and deficiencies in it). On the other hand, he seems to be the only usable source that addresses the issue at all. Anyway, if you would like a change (separating the IAU 5, or cummulative counting), suggest it on the talk page. Tbayboy (talk) 14:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Sphericity[edit]

The phrase assuming sphericity is nonsense as sphericity is a mathematical property that can have a value between 0 and 1. It does NOT mean that it is a sphere. A sphere has a value of 1. Anything that is not a perfect sphere has a value less than 1. Nyth63 12:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

@Nyth83:I realise that, in the mathematical sense. It does mean "a sphere" in the common sense (see wiktionary), but then the link makes it wrong (maybe it was linked in a subsequent edit?). I restored the original hoping the original author might fix it to reflect what was actually used (that, and "a high sphericity" doesn't make any more sense, in this context). I had been thinking of changing it to "assumming the body is a sphere" (which is a more accessible way of saying "sphericty of 1"), but I'm not sure that that is always correct, since some of the values may have been calculated using ellipsoid formulae. E.g., the volume of Haumea or Saturn. It needs fixing, but I'm hoping it can be changed to reflect reality (the equations used), rather than assumption (equations for a sphere). Tbayboy (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I looked at the wiktionary link and that only confirms that sphericity is a property and does not give common use to mean sphere or spherical. Nyth63 18:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
@Nyth83: Def 1: "The quality of being spherical, being a sphere.". The current "a sphericity of 1" says the same thing. It's the imprecise "high sphericity" I object to. The wiki-calculated numbers would have assumed either a sphere (most likely) or a triaxial ellipsoid (maybe, for some objects). Tbayboy (talk) 23:20, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
That definition is almost oxymoronic. It some field like thermodynamics, quality also has a specific mathematical purpose. And the use in that line still does not mean in common use that sphericity can be used to mean spherical. It is a calculated property of how close an object is to being spherical. It's like people misusing the work literally, as in "I literally laughed my ass off" for emphasis when they are being figurative. It's still wrong. Nyth63 02:51, 22 May 2015 (UTC)