In a trinary system...

[ashish27]

qso, it is indeed a great link. The site has a lot of info on star systems but its not profesionally designed. I wonder why?

 

[MeteorWayne]

Ceres IS technically a Dwarf Planet, not an asteroid. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[yevaud]

Mmm. Meets the size/mass qualifications, is large enough to be assuming a spherical shape. Has not cleared the local area of matter though.<br /><br />Sounds like a Dwarf Planet to me. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[jaxtraw]

There's no "technically" about it, it is a dwarf planet <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />As such, IMV we should for instance stop calling it "1 Ceres" and just call it "Ceres". 4 Vesta is IMV, despite being roughly spherical and differentiated, clearly just a big asteroid. But Ceres is a whole different kettle of ball games.

 

[MeteorWayne]

I put "technically" in there because of the dispute over the IAU definition. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Actually the other 2 Dwarf planets have "Small body numbers" as well.<br /><br />Pluto is 134340, and Eris is 136199. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[h2ouniverse]

Yes, we won't solve the dispute.<br />The term "dwarf planet" is very fine for me. By defining it as meaning "non-planet", they calm the ones who like to live with an idea of a low number of planets for the children to learn at school.<br />But semantically speaking, they open a breach in their own exclusion strategy. For a dwarf human is a human, and a dwarf star is a star so...<br /><br />This ambiguity is a good thing.<br /><br />Full-fledged planets represent the vast majority of the mass in their orbital energy slot.<br />Dwarf planets represent a minority of such a mass, but a sizable part (Ceres is 30% of asteroid belt mass, Pluto is also about 1/3 of the plutinos mass, at least for the about 180 plutinos identified to date , and for Eris we still don't know yet but that's probable too). 2005FY9 looks king in the a=45.5 AU "region" (15:8). <br />2003EL61 leads the a = 43.3 AU region (of orbital energy diagram, not space)(close to the 7:4 resonance vs Neptune)<br />Sedna: we don't know, too few IOOC objects found to tell<br />Other 700km+ objects debatable (about 20 of them to date, more to come)...<br /> And the rest is small fry.<br />Fine for me.

 

[ashish27]

Joel, do we have anything called giant stars? i mean stars that are very very big. what do we call them?

 

[MeteorWayne]

Giant stars <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Really! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

ashish27:<br />qso, it is indeed a great link. The site has a lot of info on star systems but its not profesionally designed. I wonder why?<br /><br />Me:<br />A lot of websites are not professionally designed and all for the same reason...they don't want to, or cannot pay for that service. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

O type stars are giant stars.Right?

 

[qso1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_classification<br /><br />This link should be of some use. It has a paragraph describing "O" class stars which do appear to be giants. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

Nice to learn it from quasi stellar object.

 

[qso1]

Thanks. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[h2ouniverse]

Yes ashish, as MeteorWayne said, these are Giant stars.<br /><br />Btw, there are too dwarf galaxies and giant galaxies...<br />I am sill amazed that the anti-planethood camp used the term "dwarf planet" to designate something they do not want to be considered a planet.<br />I would have been fine with "mesoplanet", but ...all the best.<br /><br />Regards.<br />