Talk:136199 Eris
From Wikipedia, a free encyclopedia written in simple English for easy reading.
[edit] Accurate Size
If Eris is bigger then Mercury it isn't a dwarf planet, because Mercury itself is a pure planet. --ยง Alastor Moody (T + C) 06:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- The classification as a dwarf planet is not only based on size (The following is from en:Definition of planet):
The IAU therefore resolves that planets and other bodies in our Solar System, except satellites, be defined into three distinct categories in the following way: . (1) A "planet"1 is a celestial body that: (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit. . (2) A "dwarf planet" is a celestial body that: (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape2, (c) has not cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit, and (d) is not a satellite. . (3) All other objects3 except satellites orbiting the Sun shall be referred to collectively as "Small Solar System Bodies". . Footnotes: . 1 The eight planets are: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. 2 An IAU process will be established to assign borderline objects into either "dwarf planet" and other categories. 3 These currently include most of the Solar System asteroids, most Trans-Neptunian Objects (TNOs), comets, and other small bodies. . The IAU further resolves: . Pluto is a "dwarf planet" by the above definition and is recognized as the prototype of a new category of trans-Neptunian objects.
-
- Eris is not bigger than Mercury. Eris is slightly bigger as Pluto, but Mercury is about twice as big. RaNdOm26 10:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Simplify
Just interested to simplify this article. What ways can I make it simpler now? RaNdOm26 10:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- IMHO, it reads a bit too scientific, too like a normal Wikipedia article - some of the terms need to be clarified, or at least linked. I'll try and work on it a bit myself. Berek 16:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)