Timeline for Do astronomers generally agree that the distinction between comets and asteroids is not so clear?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
22 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 17, 2020 at 9:47 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Mar 23, 2018 at 4:17 | comment | added | userLTK | So, it's no longer the asteroid belt, it's the SSSB belt, or Sbelt for short. I'm going to start calling it the Sbelt, though it contains a dwarf planet too. | |
| Feb 10, 2017 at 2:31 | comment | added | uhoh | @DavidHammen See my supplemental answer. I think we have a semantic bug somewhere in our conversation. It would not have taken place if the diagram were more readable - as the British Isles diagram for example. | |
| Feb 10, 2017 at 2:30 | comment | added | uhoh | @zephyr my supplemental answer. Looks like what you have said is correct, took me a while to deconstruct the diagram to see it though! | |
| Feb 9, 2017 at 17:32 | comment | added | uhoh | @zephyr wait - there is a problem in our conversation here somewhere. Either the diagram is morphing in front of me, or something else, but Minor Planets (Deep Purple) spans (roughly) the low two-thirds of the image. Small Solar System Bodies (Gray) spans (roughly) the bottom one third and Dwarf Planets (Green) spans (roughly) the center one third. Plutoids and Comets are the only two things that are subsets of anything else. In addition, Dwarf Planets and Minor Planets and Small Solar System Objects are all supersets of something. It's late I'm signing off now, but... | |
| Feb 9, 2017 at 17:17 | comment | added | zephyr | @DavidHammen I think I see the confusion. I'm interpretting the fact that the minor planet box spans both dwarf planets and SSSBs to mean it is the super-set (and that they diagram is just poorly created). I think we can all just agree that this diagram is bad and confusing. | |
| Feb 9, 2017 at 17:09 | comment | added | uhoh | @DavidHammen I had a strong feeling that was the case. Wish there was a way that stackexchange could automatically generate flags in Wikipedia. | |
| Feb 9, 2017 at 17:05 | comment | added | David Hammen | @uhoh -- In fact, the current version of the wikipedia article on Euler diagrams portrays this awful image as the prototypical example of an Euler diagram. The diagram on the British Isles is much, much better (but still not perfect). | |
| Feb 9, 2017 at 17:01 | comment | added | David Hammen | @uhoh -- Thank you. That is exactly what I mean. | |
| Feb 9, 2017 at 17:00 | comment | added | uhoh | @zephyr the difficulty here is that it is claimed somewhere within WIkipedia that this is an Euler diagram. "An Euler diagram (/ˈɔɪlər/, oy-lər) is a diagrammatic means of representing sets and their relationships. Sets like in math class with union and intersection and proofs. So there are strict rules about what does or doesn't means what. David is just saying in words what this diagram says mathematically. | |
| Feb 9, 2017 at 16:59 | comment | added | David Hammen | @zephyr -- What? The minor planet box is inside the dwarf planet box. That means that minor planets are a subset of dwarf planets, and that is 100% wrong. Dwarf planets are a tiny subset of minor planets. The diagram would be far better if it didn't show minor planets, TNOs, plutoids, comets, and centaurs. | |
| Feb 9, 2017 at 16:51 | comment | added | zephyr | @DavidHammen I'm sorry but I just don't see your point. The minor planets box is the super-set which contains both the dwarf planet box and the small solar system bodies box. The 10 meter diameter minor planet would be in the small solar system bodies box which resides in the minor planet box. This diagram does not imply that tiny minor planets are always dwarf planets. I just don't see what you actually think is wrong. | |
| Feb 9, 2017 at 16:47 | comment | added | David Hammen | @zephyr -- This is supposed to be an Euler diagram. That's not how they work. Minor planets are the superset rather than dwarf planets -- and they also encompass the non-cometary "small solar system bodies".The diagram does not depict that, so it is very wrong (but that's wikipedia for you). | |
| Feb 9, 2017 at 16:45 | comment | added | zephyr | @DavidHammen But then that tiny 10 meter diameter minor planet would exist in the portion of the "minor planet" box which is not encompassed by the "dwarf planet" box. That 10 meter diameter minor planet would exist in the intersection of the "minor planet" box and the "Small Solar System bodies" box. I think you may be misinterpreting how this plot works (which I admit, this particular diagram is not well designed). I maintain that this diagram is not wrong. | |
| Feb 9, 2017 at 16:37 | comment | added | David Hammen | @zephyr -- It most certainly does. The diagram has minor planets contained within dwarf planets. This is so very, very wrong. There are over 700,000 minor planets (and almost certainly over a million of them). There are only a few tens to hundreds of dwarf planets, each of which is a "minor planet". But a tiny 10 meter diameter minor planet most definitely is not a dwarf planet, making that diagram incorrect. | |
| Feb 9, 2017 at 15:37 | comment | added | zephyr | @DavidHammen It does not imply all minor planets are dwarf planets, only that some are (given that the minor planet area extends beyond the confines of the dwarf planets area). It also puts a dashed box of centaurs in the dwarf planet box because there are a few centaurs (e.g., 10199 Chariklo, 2060 Chiron, and 54598 Bienor) which may possibly be dwarf planets (hence the dash, it is still unconfirmed). | |
| Feb 9, 2017 at 15:31 | comment | added | David Hammen | That Euler diagram from wikipedia is incorrect. It implies, for example, that all minor planets and some centaurs are dwarf planets. | |
| Feb 8, 2017 at 4:27 | comment | added | uhoh | @BrianTung I've asked this question. | |
| Feb 8, 2017 at 3:09 | comment | added | Brian Tung | Just as an aside, I agree with @uhoh: I tend to prefer diagrams where there aren't multiple boundaries that track each other for stretches like this one does; I can't easily tell at a glance which boundary goes where. This isn't meant to cast any aspersions on the answer, which is fine! | |
| Feb 8, 2017 at 3:05 | comment | added | uhoh | OK this really clears up my confusion, thanks! I'm being humorous here, but I almost wonder if the "demotion of Pluto" was used to distract the public from noticing that Astronomers had just eaten the entire asteroid belt. I think this Euler Diagram has some room for improvement in readability - it relies heavily on color to indicate which labels go with which boxes, and to sort out those groups of parallel lines and slim overlaps, so could be ambiguous to a few percent of the population with various color-blindness. But your answer is very clear! | |
| Feb 8, 2017 at 2:06 | vote | accept | uhoh | ||
| Feb 7, 2017 at 19:27 | history | answered | zephyr | CC BY-SA 3.0 |