Talk:20000 Varuna

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Astronomy / Astronomical objects  (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 20000 Varuna is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.
 
WikiProject Solar System (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Solar System, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Solar System on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
For more information, see the Solar System importance assessment guideline.

Name[edit]

(anonymous) Varuna is an asura, not a deva as this article points.

Please quote some refs; editors specialised in mythology will certainly review it. A single statement is not the most helpful way of fixing errors. Eurocommuter 12:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The new 'Picture'[edit]

Is an 'artist's conception' really appropriate for a picture? JamesFox 17:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

If it's a professional space artist, yes. If it's an amateur Wikipedian, no. This looks like the latter; correct me if I'm wrong. The Singing Badger 17:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
OK. in fact I see it's just a cropped version of the size comparison pic on the same page. Anyone have an opinion on this? The Singing Badger 17:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
As I have stated on other pages, as long as artist's conception images are duly noted I see no problem with them as they provide some visual concept whether accurate or within reason. Some astronomic objects may never be directly imaged and in those cases an artist's concept may be the best possible guess we may ever have. Abyssoft 02:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, the problem is that this picture does not illustrate, lack of reference, neither the size, nor colour, nor albedo. In addition, it’s at odds with the elliptic model (see text). The literature presents Varuna (relatively to other KBOs) as reddish, dark, middle-sized, strongly elongated. The picture fails to illustrate any of these characteristics. Consequently, in my opinion, the picture fails to live to the within reason criterion above. Eurocommuter 14:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Size[edit]

I may have been premature editing the size of Varuna. My IE 6.0 is not showing the -324 of the previous listed diameter of (text version): 936 (+238/-324).
Should we change the diameter to 600 - 1060 km to encompass all the estimates without listing their specific ± margins of error?
It looks like Stansberry (2005) has Varuna thermally down to 600±150km with an albedo of 0.21±0.09 Kheider 18:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Why do the text and the infobox not agree on the size? Rmhermen (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually by KBO standards (given the great distance involved) those estimated diameters of 874km and 936km do match. As the reference shows there have been 4 different thermal estimates for the size of Varuna and the 2 most recent values from 2005 vary a lot. Basically it has a diameter somewhere near the 900km range ±300km. 874km is just the average of the 4 values. -- Kheider (talk) 03:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Spitzer diameter estimates are often lower than obtained from other studies. In case of Varuna, the discrepancy is especially significant. Stansberry is inclined to favour earlier (larger) estimates over Spitzer results, quoting quite low signal-noise ratio and the impossibility to fit the beaming parameter for Spitzer observation of Varuna. {The beaming parameter has been introduced to the standard thermal model to account for some hotter than predicted asteroids; it allows for locally higher temperature (the bottom of craters or other rough features); it is arguably difficult to assume/fit and can substantially affect the estimates). Eurocommuter (talk) 16:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Mass[edit]

Varuna's mass is listed as ~5.9×1020 kg and density of ~1 g/cc, yet that would imply a radius of ~520 km (~1040 km diameter) if spherical shape is assumed. Which is accurate? Dimension or mass? Sethhater123 00:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Sethhater123

Mass is uncertain by factor several. Diameter 1040 km is within allowed range. Michaelbusch 00:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

This past event is described in the future tense. Do we have news yet of what emerged?[edit]

"Varuna is predicted to occult a magnitude 14.7 star in Gemini on December 7th, 2008. This event will allow at least a lower limit to be placed on Varuna's size. If multiple observers at different locations record the event, several chords across Varuna will be measured, and this will allow the exact size to be measured. Current predictions suggest the event will be visible only from South America and southern Africa."

The above text remains in our article. Do we know yet, if people were able to make those measurements, and if so, what the actual results were? -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 23:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I checked the blog that was cited in the last sentence of that paragraph and updated the article accordingly. Iridia (talk) 05:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Shape[edit]

Isn't this almost like Haumea in shape? Lacerda & Jewitt seem to think so. Here's their picture based on light curve data (along side Haumea, aka 2003 EL 61).

I think the picture is grossly misleading, in shape alone. The article text even mentions the shape.

Is this not scientific consensus or something?

68.183.80.244 (talk) 03:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I think they believe Varuna is shaped like Haumea (~1400km) , but since Varuna is likely less than 800km in diameter, I believe it is below the threshold were they can confirm the shape. -- Kheider (talk) 03:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. I guess my next question is, if we can't confirm the shape, why are we presenting one? 68.183.80.244 (talk) 04:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Under physical characteristics I see the comment "Varuna is thought to be an elongated spheroid (ratio of axis 2:3)" and in the info box we show "(scalene ellipsoid)?". I believe File:Varuna artistic.png may be an old NASA image from before 2002. Sadly I am not sure of the original artistic source. -- Kheider (talk) 04:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 04:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 04:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Name 2[edit]

What led the IAU to giving the special number 20000 to this object? --129.13.72.196 (talk) 08:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

It's in the article. Basically, at the time it was considered special. --JorisvS (talk) 10:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
They knew it would be a relatively large object, especially for something discovered in 2000. -- Kheider (talk) 19:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 20000 Varuna. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:39, 17 September 2016 (UTC)