Quick Poll on # of Planets

[MadRat]

The basic premises of planets was thrown into controversy this past week. Let's hear your opinions on the topic!

 

[ManSnake]

Pluto is an asteroid and it has an irregular orbit.

 

[magomago]

i favor the definition that states somethhing that a planet must dominate in its locality....I was reading about this earlier and don't remember the exact wording. I think it is the fairest definition that makes SENSE. Thus - Pluto isn't a planet.

 

[fitzov]

Proposed definition of a planet:
"A planet is a celestial body that: (a) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (b) is in orbit around a star and is neither a star nor a satellite of a planet."

That makes 12 planets, including: Ceres, Charon and 2003 UB313

 

[Gigantopithecus]

I thought whatsitscalled, Quaoar (sp?) was larger than EL61? Aren't there two or three other 'objects' in the Kuiper Belt larger than EL61?

 

[Zorba]

I agree that Pluto isn't a planet. It is just the most glorified pluton.

 

[miketheidiot]

any object that has enough gravity to form spherically and is not in the orbit of any other object other than the sun. It should also be demonstratable that it is spherical not because of chance but by the effect of its own mass.

In sumary, none of the above as there are tens and probably hundreds of planets. From my understanding, ceres, charon, and whatever-its-called are planets.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Pluto is a planet by grace of the grandfather clause. But now we just have more data on it.

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
any object that has enough gravity to form spherically and is not in the orbit of any other object other than the sun. It should also be demonstratable that it is spherical not because of chance but by the effect of its own mass.

In sumary, none of the above as there are tens and probably hundreds of planets. From my understanding, ceres, charon, and whatever-its-called are planets.

we could then say that we are in orbit around the moon. The difference is that the earth dominates locally compared to the moon.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: magomago

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
any object that has enough gravity to form spherically and is not in the orbit of any other object other than the sun. It should also be demonstratable that it is spherical not because of chance but by the effect of its own mass.

In sumary, none of the above as there are tens and probably hundreds of planets. From my understanding, ceres, charon, and whatever-its-called are planets.

we could then say that we are in orbit around the moon. The difference is that the earth dominates locally compared to the moon.

Interesting... does the moon orbit the earth?
I know the earth revolves on its axis in about 24 hours.... the moon... it appears about the same time every day... in roughly the same place... one could argue that the moon just sits there (assuming we only had 5th century technology or 21st) We might extrapolate that into.. the moon makes the earth rotate... hehehhe
I wonder...

Oh.. and there is always that dark side we never see... so the moon don't rotate then.. wonder why if that is the case..

heheheh ok.. I know the moon takes 27.3odd days to orbit and it rotates in about the same time so it always faces earth the same way.. but, really it might could appear that none of that occurs.... maybe they are lying to us and Centripetal and Centrifugal forces don't exist.. hehe

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
any object that has enough gravity to form spherically and is not in the orbit of any other object other than the sun. It should also be demonstratable that it is spherical not because of chance but by the effect of its own mass.

In sumary, none of the above as there are tens and probably hundreds of planets. From my understanding, ceres, charon, and whatever-its-called are planets.

Well gee... what about the fact that some solar objects are comprised of very dense material and others very undense stuff... the motion of the undense ones and the forces at play make it appear to be spherical like Jupiter maybe.. but at the core .. do you think the dense stuff is spherical there.. the stuff what Pluto might be made of.
I think our moon is spherical and is about the same mass as Pluto.. why is one and not the other spherical? Or are they both.. and one revolves around its moon ..

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: MadRat
The basic premises of planets was thrown into controversy this past week. Let's hear your opinions on the topic!

I say leave it alone, the planets are insignificant beyond Saturn anyway

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: MadRat
The basic premises of planets was thrown into controversy this past week. Let's hear your opinions on the topic!

I say leave it alone, the planets are insignificant beyond Saturn anyway

Yup its 7 planets.

 

[sandorski]

I don't care. Let Astromers define them, I'll except that.

 

[umbrella39]

Let Bush define what a planet is. I trust his judgement. :laugh:

 

[zephyrprime]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
any object that has enough gravity to form spherically and is not in the orbit of any other object other than the sun. It should also be demonstratable that it is spherical not because of chance but by the effect of its own mass.

In sumary, none of the above as there are tens and probably hundreds of planets. From my understanding, ceres, charon, and whatever-its-called are planets.

Wow. There would be a lot of planets then since there are a lot of large round bodies in the asteroid belt and probably in the kepler belt.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: fitzov

Proposed definition of a planet:
"A planet is a celestial body that: (a) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (b) is in orbit around a star and is neither a star nor a satellite of a planet."

That makes 12 planets, including: Ceres, Charon and 2003 UB313

Was that god greek or roman? :beer:

 

[conehead433]

Originally posted by: umbrella39
Let Bush define what a planet is. I trust his judgement. :laugh:

LOL. Here's what Bush said about Mars:

"Mars is essentially in the same orbit . . . Mars is somewhat the same distance from the Sun, which is very important. We have seen pictures where there are canals, we believe, and water. If there is water, that means there is oxygen. If oxygen, that means we can breathe."

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: conehead433

Originally posted by: umbrella39
Let Bush define what a planet is. I trust his judgement. :laugh:

LOL. Here's what Bush said about Mars:

"Mars is essentially in the same orbit . . . Mars is somewhat the same distance from the Sun, which is very important. We have seen pictures where there are canals, we believe, and water. If there is water, that means there is oxygen. If oxygen, that means we can breathe."

OMG - He must have watched that Schwarznegger movie and believes it.

 

[Zorba]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: MadRat
The basic premises of planets was thrown into controversy this past week. Let's hear your opinions on the topic!

I say leave it alone, the planets are insignificant beyond Saturn anyway

Yup its 7 planets.

Saturn is the sixth planet

 

[piasabird]

Typically asteroids do not have moons.

 

[Rockinacoustic]

Originally posted by: fitzov

Proposed definition of a planet:
"A planet is a celestial body that: (a) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (b) is in orbit around a star and is neither a star nor a satellite of a planet."

That makes 12 planets, including: Ceres, Charon and 2003 UB313

That we know of

 

[BrownTown]

I vote for: who gives a sh|t. Its all a matter of symantics anyways, you can define the word "planet" however the heck you want, but in the end like everything else there is a continum the goes from small asteroid to massive gas planets. Where you want to draw the line is completely arbitrary.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: MadRat
The basic premises of planets was thrown into controversy this past week. Let's hear your opinions on the topic!

I say leave it alone, the planets are insignificant beyond Saturn anyway

Yup its 7 planets.

Well it's Officially 8 planets. They stripped Pluto as just being a ice rock.

8-24-2006 Astronomers say Pluto is not a planet

Leading astronomers declared Thursday that Pluto is no longer a planet under historic new guidelines that downsize the solar system from nine planets to eight.

Much-maligned Pluto doesn't make the grade under the new rules for a planet: "a celestial body that is in orbit around the sun, has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a ... nearly round shape, and has cleared the neighborhood around its orbit."

Pluto is automatically disqualified because its oblong orbit overlaps with Neptune's.

Instead, it will be reclassified in a new category of "dwarf planets," similar to what long have been termed "minor planets." The definition also lays out a third class of lesser objects that orbit the sun ? "small solar system bodies," a term that will apply to numerous asteroids, comets and other natural satellites.

 

[judasmachine]

Pluto (as has been stated) doesn't dominate it's region, and is almost no differant than many asteroids. I tend to think we have eight planets, and countless plutons.

My
Very
Earnst
Mother
Just
Served
Us
Nothing