-
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.
So now there are 12 planets....
- Thread starter KDOG
- Start date
outerheaven
Member
Some are just frozen masses of gas on some rock.
I think in order to be called a "planet," a celestial object must have a significant gravitional field and contain an atmosphere. Of course the scientists are debating that now.
i think using such a classical term to describe gas giants, small rocky-bodies like earth and mars, and even smaller, but large-enough-to-be-roundish-due-to-gravity *rocks* as the same type of objects doesnt make much sense when for thousands of years it basically meant "something you can see move nightly amongst the stars with the naked eye"
lets pitch planet, use the new definition, and pair it with a new term. in the science books, add a couple of pages describing why planets *used* to be used, why it came into controversy as we detected more and more objects, and why it was decided not to use it any longer in favor of a new term and definition that better matches our *current* knowledge of objects in the universe.
SophalotJack
Banned
2/10
blue1friday2
Senior member
Hmmmm. What's the point of all that? BTW I thought a moon orbited another planet so how can... oh nevermind. Anyway they'd better think up some better names for those out there planets. A handful of numbers sucks for a planet name.
Mayfriday0529
Diamond Member
In the words of Lex Luther: WRONG
There are three planets which have not been known of for "thousands" of years, and that also necessarily can't be seen with the naked eye. So apparently the 3 outermost planets aren't planets at all, according to you.
The whole point is that there is no real definition, and that's why they're coming up with one.
Mayfriday0529
Diamond Member
It matters... its science
A planet should be anything orbiting a star which is round (pretty much) and is large enough to hold an atmosphere (even if it has boiled off or frozen due to conditions).
A pseudo-planet should be anything large enough to be round purely because of gravity, but too small to holod an atmosphere.
Anything irregularly shaped should be an asteroid.
A pseudo-planet should be anything large enough to be round purely because of gravity, but too small to holod an atmosphere.
Anything irregularly shaped should be an asteroid.
Freshgeardude
Diamond Member
Mayfriday0529
Diamond Member
Charon is a moon of Pluto and under the new definition would be consider a planet, or "plutons"
HomeBrewerDude
Lifer
well, everyone knows that each system has 15 slots!
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
