Quick Poll on # of Planets

[sinucus]

Is there anyone else out there think that the Plutonians are going to be pissed now that we called their home a "dwarf planet"? I mean, I'd be pretty pissed if I'd been all cozy with my home being called a planet and then it being snatched out from under me. Watch the sky's people, watch the sky's. They're coming and they're pissed!

</sarcasm>

 

[newmachineoverlord]

you left out seven. Neptune isn't a planet either under the new rules, so the correct answer is seven.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: 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:

geek i suppose

 

[Deptacon]

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

that answer now explains why I scratch my head at a lot of things you say in this section....you never finished 4th grade....

 

[Deptacon]

Originally posted by: 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.

your taxes will now go up another 1% locally, to replace every science book to change its name from planet, to rock

 

[feralkid]

Let's talk about Uranus instead. I hear it's big and gassy.

 

[glenn1]

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

It's Bush's fault. Under his watch we lost 1/9th of the planets. Worst solar system since Hoover!

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: 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.

the key is that it has to be demonstated that it was the gravity of the object that caused it to form in such a shape, not random chance or good luck. And yes, i did say that there would be lots of planets.

Anyways the new standard in in place, w/e

 

[Jeff7]

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.

How about Saturn? Its low density, combined with its high rotational speed means that its diameter pole-to-pole is about 12,000km less than at the equator - that difference is about equal to Earth's diameter. Is it round?


Pluto always seemed a bit odd - very tiny, crazy orbit, and it had a lot of properties of what'd be expected of a Kupier belt object. It may not qualify as a planet anymore, but it still is significant - it is still getting its own dedicated flyby mission, for which I am very grateful.

 

[LunarRay]

Under the Federation of Planets Charter an entity must be a classified planet to be afforded the Civil Rights Protection guaranteed all Planetonians.. Pluto's government has but one option.. Petition members of the United Planets Congress for reconsideration. IF they can get Rep Cunningham and Rep Trafficant to agree to open hearings in the Nixon Quite room they may be able to present evidence of Bush's tacit agreement regarding the water and breathing aspects of planet life and thereby force recognition and preserve Freedom on their tiny oil free planetoid..

 

[imported_michaelpatrick33]

Originally posted by: 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

The moon is hollow and the Lizard Heads use it as base to spy on us in an experiment designed by the Lemurians who live on Pluto. They fear discovery and it is a conspiracy to stop us from thinking about it because it is our destiny to think our way to the stars.

 

[zephyrprime]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: 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.

the key is that it has to be demonstated that it was the gravity of the object that caused it to form in such a shape, not random chance or good luck. And yes, i did say that there would be lots of planets.

Anyways the new standard in in place, w/e

As I recall, a rocky planetoid only has to be about 800km in diameter to have enough gravity to make itself round. An icy planetoid could probably do it with an even smaller diameter.

 

[MadRat]

Why not consider the total mass between a planet and its satellites for a new category, planetary system? The idea of Pluto not as a solitary planet is acceptable, but the idea that it can be considered a planetary system would also be acceptable. If two suns can intertwine to form a solitary solar system then I see no reason multiple planetary objects cannot cohabitate a solitary planetary system. I don't even see a problem with considering some of the mega-satellites - around Jupiter, Neptune, and Saturn - as "planets" but are intertwined in their own respective planetary systems. Some objects that fit this definition:

* Europa (Jupiter) and Triton (Neptune) are larger than Pluto but smaller than our moon.
* Ganymede (Jupiter), Titan (Saturn), Callisto (Jupiter), and Io (Jupiter) are larger than our moon.

I wouldn't consider the moon to be a planet since it has no considerable atmosphere. But several other objects do have atmospheres and I consider them just as much as planets as I would Pluto.