• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Possible 10th planet discovered...

F

Finalnight

Golden Member
"While NASA remains intentionally vague, promising only a news conference Monday, The Australian has the details. The new planet, dubbed Sedna after the Inuit goddess of the sea, is 3 billion km further from the sun than Pluto, and is slightly smaller at 2000km in diameter. This discovery has apparently reignited the debate as to how big a solar object must be in order to qualify as a 'planet', but it is significant nonetheless."
Click to expand...

Got this off Slashdot
 
Most would consider the upper mass limit of a planet to be ~13 Jupiter masses; what is required to begin fusion. The lower limit is debated as it's really a continuum and defining a cut off point is arbitrary. One definition I've heard and like is an object massive enough that, under self gravitation, has turned itself into a rough sphere.

Of course, said object must be orbiting a star.
 
its amazing how ATOT'rs can go from topics such as this to banging their wives and back all within 24 hours. Kudos! :beer:
 
Originally posted by: silverpig
Most would consider the upper mass limit of a planet to be ~13 Jupiter masses; what is required to begin fusion. The lower limit is debated as it's really a continuum and defining a cut off point is arbitrary. One definition I've heard and like is an object massive enough that, under self gravitation, has turned itself into a rough sphere.

Of course, said object must be orbiting a star.
Click to expand...

using that definition, my old boss could be the 10th planet...

 
Originally posted by: Hector13
Originally posted by: silverpig
Most would consider the upper mass limit of a planet to be ~13 Jupiter masses; what is required to begin fusion. The lower limit is debated as it's really a continuum and defining a cut off point is arbitrary. One definition I've heard and like is an object massive enough that, under self gravitation, has turned itself into a rough sphere.

Of course, said object must be orbiting a star.
Click to expand...

using that definition, my old boss could be the 10th planet...
Click to expand...


uhh.. hah?




😕
 
Originally posted by: silverpig
Of course, said object must be orbiting a star.
Click to expand...

So given that the lower limit is scalable - we would have countless planets, considering the many thousands of asteroids and comets that "orbit" the Sun.

 
Originally posted by: hjo3
Originally posted by: MacBaine
Originally posted by: Evadman
there are only 8 planets anyway. Pluto != planet
Click to expand...

Fortunately, you aren't calling the shots.
Click to expand...
Maybe not, but NASA agrees with him.
Click to expand...
:beer:

Originally posted by: SunnyD
Originally posted by: silverpig
Of course, said object must be orbiting a star.
Click to expand...

So given that the lower limit is scalable - we would have countless planets, considering the many thousands of asteroids and comets that "orbit" the Sun.
Click to expand...
I think he meant a more or less circular orbit. Yes, nothing orbits the sun circularly, it is an elliptical orbit with the Sun at one of the fociii, but the orbits, nonetheless, are "circular." An asteroid or comet orbits the sun in an extremely elongated ellipse.
 
Originally posted by: SunnyD
Originally posted by: silverpig
Of course, said object must be orbiting a star.
Click to expand...

So given that the lower limit is scalable - we would have countless planets, considering the many thousands of asteroids and comets that "orbit" the Sun.
Click to expand...

We COULD, depending on where the limit is set yes.
 
Originally posted by: SunnyD
Originally posted by: silverpig
Of course, said object must be orbiting a star.
Click to expand...

So given that the lower limit is scalable - we would have countless planets, considering the many thousands of asteroids and comets that "orbit" the Sun.
Click to expand...

Convenient that you ignored and edited out the rest of his post that said "an object massive enough that, under self gravitation, has turned itself into a rough sphere."

That would eliminate all asteroids and comets.
 
It' a big ball of ice 3 billion kilometers from pluto. Just another object getting pulled with the suns gravity.
 
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Is everyone forgetting about planet X???
Click to expand...

i thought this was the supposed planet X.

i hope they never find Dimension X. we don't need to make it any easier for the technodrome to make it back here.
 
Originally posted by: Regs
It' a big ball of ice 3 billion kilometers from pluto. Just another object getting pulled with the suns gravity.
Click to expand...

indeed, they do need some guidelines....a large ball of rock and ice shouldnt qualify as a planet, but rather a large ball of rock that people thought was rather nifty
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top