 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
Change in absolute magnitude reflect new measurement of apparent magnitude: 19.3 in June 2010 vs. 20.6 in June 2008. The orbit and distance did not change significantly in the recent update. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.191.220.250 (talk) 20:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Object now has absolute magnitude of 3.7 according to the Minor Planet Centers list of Transneptunian Objects. This is no longer among the ten brightest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.160.128.140 (talk) 19:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Hevron1998: The conference presentation PDF referenced here does not indicate where this diameter (670) comes from. The arXiv version of the paper that this presentation references, Pushing the limits: K2 observations of the trans-Neptunian objects 2002 GV31 and (278361) 2007 JJ43, gives a value of 610, but it is just derived from an assumed albedo (.13) and the JPL absolute magnitude (3.9). Does anybody have access to the actual Astrophysical Journal article to see where the 670 number comes from? Tbayboy (talk) 18:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on (278361) 2007 JJ43. 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 trueorfailed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:12, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on (278361) 2007 JJ43. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I might be sounding like a bit of a stuck record, given recent comments and edits on other TNOs, plus also what others have said above, but: How have the three listed size estimates been arrived at? After all, the usual state of affairs is that, with a fixed brightness and colour profile, a lower albedo estimate matches a larger object size - not a smaller one, which is what appears to be the case in this article. Are the lower albedos also matched to rather higher magnitudes (ie, a dimmer appearance) or something? After all, the largest size, and highest estimated diameter, shown here is also with the highest magnitude out of the 3.2, 3.7 and 3.9 mentioned; in other words, it's the lowest estimate of the object's brightness.
If 3.9mag and 13% albedo makes for a 610km diameter, a 3.2mag observation (1.91x brighter on a linear scale) and 8% assumed albedo (= same brightness from 1.625 more light falling on the object surface) should make for a much larger 1073km diameter (610 x square root of 3.096x more light when normalised to 100% albedo) - somewhere in the range of Sedna, Quaoar or Tethys, larger than Ceres, and a firm shoo-in for being confidently called a dwarf planet. If we split the responsibility for reducing size to 538km between magnitude and albedo, we'd be looking at something like 4.04 and 14.7% respectively. If we want to reduce the albedo to less than 10%, the magnitude will have to increase considerably, and vice-versa. 146.199.60.87 (talk) 18:35, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Update: The plot thickens. The Johnson Archive page doesn't even GIVE a magnitude, only an albedo and colour... sometimes (I guess we just have to take their diameter estimates on trust?). The cite given for Brown's estimate was both a) horrendously out of date (8 years old, and I've only been able to improve it by 3 so far), b) wholly incorrect (it said 694km at the time, not 554km, and the mag/albedo were similarly wrong; "now", ie 2014, it's 617km). So that's not really given the above question any answers.
I'm going to see if I can get a fresher version of the Brown page, because I'm sure it's out there, just the URL being used by the Internet Archive is broken (nothing but "crawl time errors" for the last five years of captures), but his list generally seems to just be fairly crude guesses at the best of time, with no sourcing any better than the usually hilariously terrible JPL or MPC figures, and there's a decent chance it'll just repeat the figure from the 2015 paper - which at this point should probably be considered the most reliable and effectively the gold standard, as it actually uses some kind of quotable research, and if it includes anything like e.g. Herschel or Spitzer space telescope data it'll be pretty much the best we have. 146.199.60.87 (talk) 19:02, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
