So now there are 12 planets....
- Thread starter KDOG
- Start date
Originally posted by: dug777
They're just sucky little rocks
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.
JohnCU
Banned
- Dec 9, 2000
- 16,528
- 4
- 0
Originally posted by: outerheaven
Originally posted by: dug777
They're just sucky little rocks
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.
mars doesn't really have an atmosphere
Originally posted by: JohnCU
Originally posted by: outerheaven
Originally posted by: dug777
They're just sucky little rocks
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.
mars doesn't really have an atmosphere
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.
Why does this even matter?
Like who gets paid to waste time coming up with junk like this? How can you seriously debate over whether Pluto is a planet... have they nothing better to do?
Bleeeeh.
Like who gets paid to waste time coming up with junk like this? How can you seriously debate over whether Pluto is a planet... have they nothing better to do?
Bleeeeh.
They aren't chemists and rocket scientists. They look at the sky all night they have their whole days to debate random crap. (BTW I know they can do other things, but it doesn't seem like it when crap like this comes up)
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.
Originally posted by: xSauronx
Originally posted by: JohnCU
Originally posted by: outerheaven
Originally posted by: dug777
They're just sucky little rocks
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.
mars doesn't really have an atmosphere
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.
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.
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
- Jul 31, 2006
- 4,506
- 0
- 76
HomeBrewerDude
Lifer
- Jan 18, 2001
- 14,465
- 1
- 0
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 20K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter