Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

IAU Names Fifth Dwarf Planet Haumea

CmdrTaco posted more than 5 years ago | from the i-was-rooting-for-slash-and-dot dept.

Space 94

Kligat writes "The International Astronomical Union has renamed the dwarf planet Haumea and its two moons Hi'iaka and Namaka, after the Hawaiian fertility goddess, the patron goddess of Hawaii, and a water spirit. The cigar-shaped body is speculated to have resulted from its short rotational period of only four hours. Holding up the reclassification of the body as a dwarf planet was a dispute over its discovery between the groups of José Luis Ortiz Moreno and Michael E. Brown."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered


fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25053811)

eat my asshole! Vote Barack Obama!

Re:fp (-1, Offtopic)

berwiki (989827) | more than 5 years ago | (#25054223)

I was on the verge of going either way, but this comment sealed the deal!
Thank You Anonymous Coward!

Re:fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25055203)

Thanks. I appreciate the way you eat my asshole. You really put your tongue into it. It's like a horse eating an apple.

Paging Dr. Freud (4, Funny)

russotto (537200) | more than 5 years ago | (#25053841)

Wait, it's "cigar-shaped" and they're naming it after a fertility _Goddess_? Something's not right here.

Re:Paging Dr. Freud (5, Funny)

BPPG (1181851) | more than 5 years ago | (#25053949)

Sometimes a cigar-shaped dwarf planet is just a cigar-shaped dwarf planet.

Re:Paging Dr. Freud (1)

b.emile (1222958) | more than 5 years ago | (#25053963)

Came in here for the cigar-shaped jokes, am not leaving disappointed.

Re:Paging Dr. Freud (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25054571)

A++++ Would read again.

Re:Paging Dr. Freud (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25054417)

Cigar Shaped? Fertility Goddess?

Perhaps should have been names Lewinsky???

Re:Paging Dr. Freud (1)

RobertB-DC (622190) | more than 5 years ago | (#25054821)

That's why I tagged the story "justacigar".

Re:Paging Dr. Freud (1)

rk (6314) | more than 5 years ago | (#25058241)

How many Freudians does it take to change a light bulb?

Two. One to switch the bulb and the other to hold the penis.

Re:Paging Dr. Freud (1)

againjj (1132651) | more than 5 years ago | (#25059057)

Look at the linked Wikipedia page -- it's definitely egg shaped. Was someone trying to see something that wasn't there?

Re:Paging Dr. Freud (1)

syousef (465911) | more than 4 years ago | (#25066109)

Wait, it's "cigar-shaped" and they're naming it after a fertility _Goddess_? Something's not right here.

This is what bothers you most? By the IAU's definition a dwarf planet is not a planet, and a planet that doesn't orbit our own star is not a planet. I've got a masters in Astronomy (never used it professionally and never intended to, did the degree for my own learning). I have no time for the IAU's nonsense. It's a good example of how politics in science leads to nonsense in science.

That's no moon (0)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 5 years ago | (#25053849)

A long cylindrical object accompanied by two nearby orbs?

I'm surprised they chose an Hawaiian name over an African one.

Yet another goddess (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25053861)

Ok, great victory for believers in Hawaiian mythology. I'm waiting for the day when they finally run out of religious mythologies and have to allow names like Xena for real. Although there are so many religions around that by that time Xena will probably be seen as an ancient mythological figure.

Re:Yet another goddess (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25053879)

Just wait for its moons, Buffy and Angel.

Re:Yet another goddess (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25054095)

"Xena" is a possible linguistic corruption of "xenia," [wikipedia.org] which is an ancient concept of ritual hospitality that is very important in mythology. Just saying.

Re:Yet another goddess (1)

Eg0Death (1282452) | more than 5 years ago | (#25054461)

Think Xenu will ever make the cut? Let's hope Tom Cruise doesn't take up astronomy.

Re:Yet another goddess (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25055015)

You forgot the TM and Copyright signs.

Re:Yet another goddess (1)

jitterman (987991) | more than 5 years ago | (#25055243)

...by that time Xena will probably be seen as an ancient mythological figure.

But, of fertility or castration?

Re:Yet another goddess (1)

ABoerma (941672) | more than 5 years ago | (#25055557)

I wonder which they'll allow first when they run out of 'old' pantheons: planet Xena or planet Jesus. No troll intended, just wondering.

Re:Yet another goddess (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25055711)

I'm waiting for the day when they start using Christian mythology and name an asteroid Jesus.

Re:Yet another goddess (2, Interesting)

somersault (912633) | more than 5 years ago | (#25056933)

Don't you think a name like Jesus at least deserves a moon? An asteroid would be Baby Jesus.

Re:Yet another goddess (1)

fyoder (857358) | more than 5 years ago | (#25057403)

Don't you think a name like Jesus at least deserves a moon? An asteroid would be Baby Jesus.

Perhaps that's where people go when they rapture. Like that episode of Voyager where the inhabitants of a planet thought they went to a higher plane when they died, but turned they actually wound up as mummies on a rock in space somewhere.

Re:Yet another goddess (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25058591)

are you saying that we should name something like that after Jesus, or that by naming it Jesus it would turn into such an affair?

never mind, I don't care anymore. nice voyager reference though, I didn't know anyone else ever watched that

Re:Yet another goddess (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25060501)

I would mock you for watching Voyager, but I actually know the episode you're talking about. Damn.

Re:Yet another goddess (1)

arbitraryaardvark (845916) | more than 5 years ago | (#25059535)

This minor planet was unoffically called Santa at one time.
  This is thought to be why the Haumeans object to being called a dwarf planet, it's an elf planet you insensitive clods.

Dwarf Planets should be named after Dwarves (2, Interesting)

billstewart (78916) | more than 5 years ago | (#25057907)

If they're going to call them dwarf planets, they should name them after dwarves.

Probably some of the dwarves in Norse mythology have names? But certainly there's all the Tolkein dwarves, and the Disney dwarfs.

There is only one logical response (2, Funny)

iamlucky13 (795185) | more than 5 years ago | (#25059175)

This is getting complicated. Before Pluto got demoted our 3rd graders only had to remember earth plus 8 stereotypical Roman gods. Now we've got Hawaiin fertility goddesses, Pacific islander super-deities, Eskimo ice-queens, and TV warrior princesses. Curse they IAU! When will the insanity stop?

Obviously something has to be done. Our preconceived notions about the solar system are collapsing around us. There is only one logical response:

It'll have to go.

Blow everything up except the sun, the original nine planets, and their moons...except Phobos. Blow Phobos up, as well. Too many demon invasions from that place. We'll join the ranks of the people of Krikkit as a civillization that defined its own universe, and our third graders can go back to embarrassing educated adults on television. Do it for the children.

GOD has a name for yOUR 'ailments' (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25053903)

greed, fear & ego are unprecedented evile's primary weapons. those, along with deception & coercion, helps most of us remain (unwittingly?) dependent on its' life0cidal hired goons' agenda. most of yOUR dwindling resources are being squandered on the 'wars', & continuation of the billionerrors stock markup FraUD/pyramid schemes. nobody ever mentions the real long term costs of those debacles in both life & any notion of prosperity for us, or our children, not to mention the abuse of the consciences of those of us who still have one. see you on the other side of it. the lights are coming up all over now. conspiracy theorists are being vindicated. some might choose a tin umbrella to go with their hats. the fairytail is winding down now. let your conscience be yOUR guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. there are still some choices. if they do not suit you, consider the likely results of continuing to follow the corepirate nazi hypenosys story LIEn, whereas anything of relevance is replaced almost instantly with pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking propaganda or 'celebrity' trivia 'foam'. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on yOUR brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.


is it time to get real yet? A LOT of energy is being squandered in attempts to keep US in the dark. in the end (give or take a few 1000 years), the creators will prevail (world without end, etc...), as it has always been. the process of gaining yOUR release from the current hostage situation may not be what you might think it is. butt of course, most of US don't know, or care what a precarious/fatal situation we're in. for example; the insidious attempts by the felonious corepirate nazi execrable to block the suns' light, interfering with a requirement (sunlight) for us to stay healthy/alive. it's likely not good for yOUR health/memories 'else they'd be bragging about it? we're intending for the whoreabully deceptive (they'll do ANYTHING for a bit more monIE/power) felons to give up/fail even further, in attempting to control the 'weather', as well as a # of other things/events.


'The current rate of extinction is around 10 to 100 times the usual background level, and has been elevated above the background level since the Pleistocene. The current extinction rate is more rapid than in any other extinction event in earth history, and 50% of species could be extinct by the end of this century. While the role of humans is unclear in the longer-term extinction pattern, it is clear that factors such as deforestation, habitat destruction, hunting, the introduction of non-native species, pollution and climate change have reduced biodiversity profoundly.' (wiki)

consult with/trust in yOUR creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."

Paging Dr. TimeCube (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25054517)

Nobody puts TimeCube in a corner!

Moreno and Brown (0, Troll)

Henry V .009 (518000) | more than 5 years ago | (#25053933)

This was basically a dirty move by Moreno's team, taking credit for the discovery. The story has appeared on Slashdot before, but here is the Wikipedia entry for Moreno:

Michael E. Brown and his team at Caltech had also had been observing Haumea, and for a longer period of time than Ortiz, but had withheld publication pending securing its orbital parameters. Brown initially supported Ortiz and his team being given credit for the discovery. However, he withdrew that support when it turned out that Ortiz had accessed Brown's public observation logs and research just before announcing the discovery. Ortiz maintained that he only did so to see if this was the same object that his team had been tracking. The IAU awarded credit to Ortiz, as credit is given to the first person to publish or notify the IAU about a discovery, and there was no evidence of impropriety. However, it accepted Brown's suggested name of Haumea rather than Ortiz's Ataecina.

Re:Moreno and Brown (3, Insightful)

IWannaBeAnAC (653701) | more than 5 years ago | (#25054159)

Not really. Moreno had also been looking at the object for a while, they only looked at Brown's observing logs the day before their announcement, to check whether they were actually looking at the same object as Brown. Brown didn't follow the standard procedure for claiming discovery of a minor planet (but had published an abstract signifying their intention to announce the discovery), which left the door open for Moreno to get in first. If Brown had followed procedure, there would have been no problem.

It was very impolite of Moreno though. The polite action would have been for Moreno to (1) contact Brown directly, rather than googling through his observing logs, and (2) come to a friendly agreement on who gets to claim the discovery. The astronomy community is (or was, until this event) very good natured. That good nature was probably the biggest casualty in all of this. But Moreno's reputation took a hammering too, at least in the popular press.

Re:Moreno and Brown (3, Funny)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 5 years ago | (#25054225)

Moreno's reputation took a hammering too, at least in the popular press.

I'd be interested to hear your definition of "popular press".

Re:Moreno and Brown (1)

IWannaBeAnAC (653701) | more than 5 years ago | (#25054431)

By "popular press", I mean the various press agencies commonly read by the proletariat that reported the spat between Brown and Ortiz Moreno. From what I recall, most of them did report it.

How do you define "popular press" ?

Re:Moreno and Brown (0)

Henry V .009 (518000) | more than 5 years ago | (#25055187)

The claim that Moreno had also been looking at the object for a while has been discussed before, and is highly dubious. I'm curious as to what special information you have that makes it so believable to you.

Re:Moreno and Brown (0, Flamebait)

IWannaBeAnAC (653701) | more than 5 years ago | (#25055659)

Well, Brown is apparently still favoring the theory that Ortiz Moreno never did his own observations and 'stole' all the data from Brown's observing logs. But Brown himself admits there is no firm evidence for this. The IAU's decision to accept joint discovery was probably inevitable; either that or directly accuse Ortiz Moreno of scientific misconduct.

If you have evidence, then put up. Otherwise, stop accusing people of fraud and shut up. Either way, what Ortiz Moreno did was impolite and dishonest, but if you are accusing him of scientific misconduct, then you need to show proof. I'm sure the IAU would be thrilled to hear from you. As would Brown himself.

Re:Moreno and Brown (0, Flamebait)

Henry V .009 (518000) | more than 5 years ago | (#25063795)

When someone takes an abstract for an upcoming talk, Googles the software-assigned name "K40506A," from said abstract, then plays around with the url to get access to unlinked data, then points their telescope at the spot mentioned in the data, then sends out an email (from the same computer used to access the data in the first place) saying "here's our discovery, look at my new data plus some archival data from this telescope," and doesn't even mention the data access, doesn't even respond when confronted...well yeah, my bullshit alarm goes off.

Look, here's the timeline [caltech.edu] (which you never read, because your entire expertise on this comes from the link to Mike Brown's blog you saw elsewhere in the discussion -- those who have followed this for a while have a bit of an advantage, eh?).

Maybe Moreno couldn't be convicted in a court of law. But anybody that believes Moreno's highly improbable account has his brain dribbling from his nose-holes.

It seems clear that you simply read my original quote from Wikipedia, thought that was all there was, and became a Slashdot InstaExpert on the subject. You probably do it all the time. Once I called you on it, you did a little extra reading, found that I was right, and retreated to your "no firm evidence" stance. Just because you own a keyboard doesn't mean we need to see you pontificate on every subject under the sun. The internet will be a better place with a little less of your stupidity in the future, huh?

Here's a bit more information from Brown, if you don't really understand how astronomy works: hasty announcement and the reports of "hacking" [caltech.edu]. Yes, yes, I know that you are even now composing a reply with a huge list of your qualifications. The hacking discussion was linked from the original 2005 New York Times article [nytimes.com] about the controversy, which again, you never read, but which I saw when the story broke.

Re:Moreno and Brown (1)

IWannaBeAnAC (653701) | more than 5 years ago | (#25065265)

You fool, I already read the timeline; once, at the time of the original event, and once again before I wrote my post. From there I hunted around until I got to http://web.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/ [caltech.edu], and from there to http://www.mikebrownsplanets.com/ [mikebrownsplanets.com] .

FWIW, my Dad is an astronomer. I'm just a condensed matter physicist. I don't have any inside information though, nor does the old man. For you to make such accusations, I would hope that you do have such information. But since you have never deigned to show the proof, I can only assume you are full of it.

Re:Moreno and Brown (1)

Henry V .009 (518000) | more than 4 years ago | (#25067045)

Oh yes, you knew all about it when you wrote your first post, huh? Now go on, I'd love to here about your physics credentials. You brought it up. Now shell out.

Re:Moreno and Brown (1)

laura20 (21566) | more than 4 years ago | (#25068151)

That's Moreno's claim, that it was simply co-incidental that he went back though two year old data right after Brown released the abstract. However, Brown pretty much nails it: Moreno used the abstract and the logs for research but did not cite them. That's a big fucking no-no in science, and the only real reason to do that is to try to conceal the fact you were pirating someone else's research.

So no cigar for him. Heh.

Re:Moreno and Brown (1)

IWannaBeAnAC (653701) | more than 4 years ago | (#25068477)

Well, Moreno's claim is that they never really used the information in the logs, but only looked at it to confirm that they were studying the same object. It is bloody suspicious though, the standard procedure in that case would be to just email Brown and ask him. And I agree, not citing Brown is poor form, irrespective of any other circumstances. But what would Moreno have cited? You cannot cite an abstract that contains no information, nor can you cite an observing log on the internet. You can only cite a publication, and Brown hadn't published yet. Presumably the IAU and/or Brown have already tried to determine if the orbit information submitted by Moreno could be traced back to the data in Brown's logs (eg, by calculating the orbit from the exact figures that Moreno accessed from the logs, and seeing if it agreed to the N'th decimal place with the figures submitted to the IAU), but couldn't find a smoking gun.

I tend to the opinion that, if there had been a fraud, there would be more evidence for it. For example, the 2003 observations that Moreno talks about, these either happened or didn't happen. There must be some documentation on that, and presumably the IAU investigated this.

Re:Moreno and Brown (1)

arth1 (260657) | more than 5 years ago | (#25054425)

I see nothing dirty here. If you keep your observation logs public, you can't cry foul when someone accesses them or even uses the information in them (something he hasn't shown, and is only implying).

And in any case, there's not any lack of documentation that Moreno had been investigating the object. It's not like he didn't know about it until the day before he reported it and "stole" the whole thing from Michael Brown.

In short, Brown gambled on no one else reporting it while he collected more data so he could make a bigger splash, and lost the gamble, because others were studying it too, who were more interested in notifying the scientific community than in making a big splash.

In my opinion, Mr. Brown appears as a bad gambler, sore loser and not a good academian. He may be a good astronomer, though.

Re:Moreno and Brown (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25054823)

Wait so.. he's a bad person because he kept open source logs, and wanted to verify his findings before publishing them?

It seems to me his only crime is being as naive as the average slash dot open source advocate!

Re:Moreno and Brown (1)

samkass (174571) | more than 5 years ago | (#25054963)

I think the suspicion was in the timing. The timing of events went something like: both had been observing the same object. Brown released an abstract saying he'd be announcing something. Moreno googled his logs to see what he'd been observing. Moreno then announces it the next day. I think there was speculation that upon realizing Brown would be announcing the discovery of the same object he was observing, Moreno announced it himself the next day since the first to announce it gets credit for discovery.

Regardless, finding a loophole in someone's data security and secretly viewing someone else's logs is impolite, if not downright unethical. It certainly doesn't speak well of Moreno's integrity.

Re:Moreno and Brown (1)

Henry V .009 (518000) | more than 5 years ago | (#25063931)

A little bit more to it than that. Moreno accessed the data, then asked his colleagues to point the telescope right where the object should be, then sent out an announcement with the new observation plus a bunch of archival data. The Caltech crew got suspicious when they noticed the Googling. They got even more suspicious when they noticed it was from the same IP as the announcement email. They got even more suspicious when Moreno wouldn't respond to their request for an explanation.

Moreno didn't find a dwarf planet, he exploited Google. He is a liar that doesn't have any right to the discovery.

Re:Moreno and Brown (1)

IWannaBeAnAC (653701) | more than 4 years ago | (#25067363)

That isn't quite right, the first announcement from Moreno's group occurred before they did the new observations. You really should read the timeline [caltech.edu] to get it straight before making posts, otherwise you are just wasting people's time. Moreno's group sent the announcement to the IAU the day after the first access of Brown's observing logs. It was only after this announcement that Moreno accessed Brown's logs again and requested the additional observations. After that, Moreno sent a follow-up email to the IAU with the new observations, and also some more of their 2003 data. This is suspicious, but it is also possible that Moreno's group simply hadn't finished analyzing all the 2003 data by the 27th, but were desperate to claim the discovery nevertheless. That would be impolite, but not fraudulent.

The whole dispute would have been avoided if Brown's group had contacted the IAU in the first instance, instead of just publishing an abstract for a forthcoming paper that had no official status.

Re:Moreno and Brown (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25055051)

Mike Brown made a post about the history surrounding the discovery of Haumea on his blog.


Moreno IS Brown (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25056423)

It's a pseudonym [spanishdict.com]. He just wanted to rake in the fame twice.

CSBN & WGPSN (3, Funny)

owlstead (636356) | more than 5 years ago | (#25054181)

"The decision was made after discussions by members of the International Astronomical Union's Committee on Small Body Nomenclature (CSBN) and the IAU Working Group for Planetary System Nomenclature (WGPSN)"

Surprisingly interesting names, but should bodies that name themselves CSBN and WGPSN really be in charge of naming other bodies?


somersault (912633) | more than 5 years ago | (#25057075)

Well, the first could kind of be pronounced 'Caspian', and the second one.. err.. we got PlayStation Network?

Fitting name for an invisible planet... (1)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | more than 5 years ago | (#25054211)

Fitting name for an invisible planet: Named after a fertility goddess...yet geeks will only ever know her through pictures on the web.

Re:Fitting name for an invisible planet... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25054357)

I beg to differ! My wife gave birth to our first kid! And...wait a minute? I just realized that I was too busy with WoW to consumate...but... ...Darnit! It's a good thing she isn't home right now, or I would tell her what I think. Why is she always gone most of the day? And the night?

It's Thursday, so she should be swinging by for her check soon. While I'm waiting for her, I could try for another level or two. But first, let me refill my snacks!

Need more Red Bull...

"patron goddess"? (0)

PHPNerd (1039992) | more than 5 years ago | (#25054275)

Does anyone else find "patron goddess" ironic? Patron comes from the Latin word "Pater" meaning "Father".

Re:"patron goddess"? (1)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 5 years ago | (#25054341)

Does anyone else find "patron goddess" ironic? Patron comes from the Latin word "Pater" meaning "Father".

With some things I've accidentally downloaded off the Internet, I don't think there's any irony here at all.

Re:"patron goddess"? (1)

AP31R0N (723649) | more than 4 years ago | (#25070163)

i emailed the site and told them about matron vs. patron, and they changed it.

(and it wouldn't be ironic, so much as ignorant or a mistake)

Did anyone else read this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25054469)

Did anyone else read this as filthy dwarf planet?

In Dutch... (3, Interesting)

Arrawa (681474) | more than 5 years ago | (#25054533)

Haumea is the pronunciation of homo which means gay. This kind of spelling is often used at a hugely popular blog called Geenstijl.nl...

Re:In Dutch... (1)

aapold (753705) | more than 5 years ago | (#25058259)

Thankfully none of the planets or planetoids have embarrassing pronunciations in english.

Re:In Dutch... (0, Troll)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 4 years ago | (#25067595)

Yeah, although that would be awkward if asteroid Haumea/Homo approached Uranus.

Re:In Dutch... (1)

Kentari (1265084) | more than 4 years ago | (#25068693)

Unless you have a serious speaking disorder, Haumea is not pronounced like "homo" in Dutch.

The "au" in Haumea is pronounced like the "ow" in "how", and the "ea" are pronouced seperately.

The "o"'s in "homo" are just "o"'s like in "homo sapiens".

It actually sounds exactly like it would sound in Hawaiian. Dutch and Hawaiian phonology are rather similar (unlike Dutch and English). Pronouncing it like "homo" would just mean you're doing it wrong in both languages.

Nothing to see here, please move along...

Re:In Dutch... (1)

Arrawa (681474) | more than 4 years ago | (#25068899)

Partly true. If you would pronounce it in standard Dutch, you are right that the o is pronounced differently. But this if you pronounce it the 'geenstijl'-way, you would sound very cocky and gay...

Re:In Dutch... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25108363)

wrong. its pronounced how-meh-ah. get your facts straight.

Not Gravitationally Rounded (2, Interesting)

Steve Hosgood (152793) | more than 5 years ago | (#25054991)

I thought the definition of a Dwarf Planet was that it was big enough to be rounded by its own gravity, but not big enough to have swept its orbit clear of other debris?

If it is indeed cigar shape, it would appear to fail the first of these criteria.

Re:Not Gravitationally Rounded (2, Informative)

bunratty (545641) | more than 5 years ago | (#25055069)

Haumea is cigar-shaped because it is rounded by gravity and stretched by rotation. That is different from being a rigid, irregularly shaped object that resembles a cigar.

Re:Not Gravitationally Rounded (1)

OolimPhon (1120895) | more than 5 years ago | (#25056859)

Haumea is cigar-shaped because it is rounded by gravity and stretched by rotation.

If that were so, it should be disk-shaped, not cigar-shaped.

Re:Not Gravitationally Rounded (1)

bunratty (545641) | more than 5 years ago | (#25059099)

Don't ask me to explain it. I'm merely repeating what astronomers have said, which clarifies why it's considered rounded by gravity and yet also cigar-shaped.

Re:Not Gravitationally Rounded (1)

hvm2hvm (1208954) | more than 5 years ago | (#25057137)

How does rotation stretch it to a cigar shape? Shouldn't it make more like a thick pancake?

Re:Not Gravitationally Rounded (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25059267)

Some kind of major disturbance, I would guess.

For comparison, an ideal water balloon is spherical, but when you spin them they tend to become elongated in the same manner as Haumea, rather than like a frisbee.

Why not go for the obvious names instead? (0, Troll)

ZarathustraDK (1291688) | more than 5 years ago | (#25055287)

I mean, the cigar-shaped dwarf-planet Bill and its two moons Hillary and Monica would be easier to remember.

Oh, oh... (1)

whitroth (9367) | more than 5 years ago | (#25057079)

I followed the link to the picture.

Didn't *anyone* realize that it's a giant egg? And when it hatches, it's going to come in-system for food?

              mark "it's hatching...arrrrghghghghghghhh....."

Ooh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25057395)

A cigar-shaped planet? Tag "jinx", please.

Did Snow White approve of this..? (1)

mfnickster (182520) | more than 5 years ago | (#25057649)

"IAU Names Fifth Dwarf Planet Haumea"

Ah, so now it goes: Happy, Sleepy, Sneezy, Grumpy, Planet Haumea, Dopey, and Doc?

Cigar, or hamburger? (1)

Stuntmonkey (557875) | more than 5 years ago | (#25061663)

It doesn't seem accurate to me to call it "cigar-shaped". If the shape is due to its rotation (which is implied by the Brown et al paper linked from the article), then it would have an oblate spheroid shape like the Earth. I.e., more of a hamburger shape than cigar. It seems a shame to ruin all these Freudian jokes, but facts are facts.

C'mon, throw Pluto a bone here (1)

algae (2196) | more than 5 years ago | (#25063937)

It's not a dwarf planet, it's a Plutoid [wikipedia.org]. Give #9 a little respect people.

A Meme in The Making (1)

alephnull42 (202254) | more than 4 years ago | (#25068517)

Internet fame awaits the first fat guy with a webcam who posts a "Haumea-Haumea" video to YouTube.

Anonymous Coward. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25086331)

Thanks a lot IAU now i have to change my coursework on dwarf planets and kuiper belt etc. coz of u muppets!!!!!


gonna take forever

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account