-
Senior Member
Array Whatever doesn't kill you, is gonna leave a scar...
Looking for a certain Striptease...... -
Senior Member
Array Oh man, this is so going to screw up my astrology chart... Why sabre? Because you don't take heads with the point. -
Fencing Expert
Array Worse (if making planetary charts outdated is bad -- or even just nursery-room solar system mobiles) is if that definition gets approved there will relatively soon be dozens more planets.
-B "Oh but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you!" -
Senior Member
Array I can hear the 5th dimension now...
"When Ceres is in the 7th house and Charon aligns with 2003UB313"
How trippingly it rolls off the tongue. Fencing T-shirts available at Off-The-Piste Wear **New designs** including f.net themed designs for easy recognition of fellow f.netters at tournaments! -
Senior Member
Array Ack!
It won't be: "My Very Educated Mother Just Served Us Nine Pizzas"
Anymore!!!!!!
How am I gonna remember Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Ceres, Jupiter....  Originally Posted by IHateMrPotatohead I can't think of anything to put down there!  -
misleading. pluto is being relabeled as a "pluton", not a planet. the other celestial bodies will also be classified as "plutons". we will have 8 planets and 4 plutons.
Last edited by noodle; 08-16-2006 at 03:16 PM.
-
Senior Member
Array  Originally Posted by IHateMrPotatohead Ack!
It won't be: "My Very Educated Mother Just Served Us Nine Pizzas"
Anymore!!!!!!
How am I gonna remember Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Ceres, Jupiter....  You could always try:
My Very Educated Mother Couldn't Just Shut Up N' Passively Comply (in) 2003, Useless B****! Fencing T-shirts available at Off-The-Piste Wear **New designs** including f.net themed designs for easy recognition of fellow f.netters at tournaments! -
Senior Member
Array  Originally Posted by noodle misleading. pluto is being relabeled as a "pluton", not a planet. the other celestial bodies will also be classified as "plutons". we will have 7 planets and 4 plutons. Actually given the description I think it works like this. All plutons are planets, but not all planets are plutons. Fencing T-shirts available at Off-The-Piste Wear **New designs** including f.net themed designs for easy recognition of fellow f.netters at tournaments! -
Senior Member
Array  Originally Posted by gtmac Actually given the description I think it works like this. All plutons are planets, but not all planets are plutons.
That is correct per the proposed definitions
Last edited by latenight; 08-16-2006 at 02:26 PM.
Whatever doesn't kill you, is gonna leave a scar...
Looking for a certain Striptease...... -
Senior Member
Array  Originally Posted by gtmac Actually given the description I think it works like this. All plutons are planets, but not all planets are plutons.
Oh! Ot's just like squares and rectangles in Geometry! Yay!  Originally Posted by IHateMrPotatohead I can't think of anything to put down there!  -
 Originally Posted by gtmac Actually given the description I think it works like this. All plutons are planets, but not all planets are plutons. according to the definition of binary stars, they are also both planets, but we still use the most specific identifier. these new planets have been picked up and are intended to be referred to as plutons, not planets. -
Senior Member
Array  Originally Posted by noodle misleading. pluto is being relabeled as a "pluton", not a planet. the other celestial bodies will also be classified as "plutons". we will have 7 planets and 4 plutons. Eight planets.
Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune. Why sabre? Because you don't take heads with the point. -
Armorer
Array Here is the definition.
"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."
One of the 12 planets proposed is Charon the moon of Pluto.
If Pluto is classified as a planet, then how can a Charon, since it is a satellite of a planet?
They also talk of 53 planets, if this passes. Donald Hollis Clinton, Jr. DHCJr@juno.com
To Teach is to Learn (Japanese Proverb)
Knowing the rule book by heart means nothing, if you don't understand the rules. -
Senior Member
Array  Originally Posted by DHCJr Here is the definition.
"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."
One of the 12 planets proposed is Charon the moon of Pluto.
If Pluto is classified as a planet, then how can a Charon, since it is a satellite of a planet?
They also talk of 53 planets, if this passes.
"A pair of round objects that orbit around a point in space that is outside both objects — meaning the center of gravity (or barycenter) is between the two planets in space as with Pluto and Charon — would be called double planets" Whatever doesn't kill you, is gonna leave a scar...
Looking for a certain Striptease...... -
Senior Member
Array Interplanetary Fellows I agree in totality. The 5th Dimension is great, but alas gone......UP UP AND AWAY.....is one of my favorite songs.......
I find it misleading as well, and a dissapointment that our "scientists" spent a few Billion dollars to call an asteroid a planet, while there's mass confusion on the Third Rock from the Sun. -
Senior Member
Array its flippin' retarded.
just admit that pluto shouldn't be a planet, and leave us with the 8 original planets!!! back in 1930 or whatever it was they messed up. admit it, and we wont have 2 bazillion plutons/planet like rocks.
xena is a cool name though. Fencing: Violence is a way of life!!
The Easter bunny is unstoppable!! -
Fencing Expert
Array  Originally Posted by fencingfrog the 8 original planets!!! ???
Neptune was discovered not quite 160 years ago, how can it be "original"? Ceres was a planet for nearly 50 years (starting in 1801) before being demoted. It had already lost its status before Neptune was discovered. Pallas, Juno, and Vesta similarly were considered planets during this time. Once other objects started being found in the Asteroid Belt in 1845 they were all demoted.
That said, there is a naming convention being floated of "Classical Planets" meaning those discovered and considered planets as of 1900 (so not including Ceres, et al). It matches what you're apparently referring to as "original" planets.
-B "Oh but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you!" -
 Originally Posted by fencingfrog its flippin' retarded.
just admit that pluto shouldn't be a planet, and leave us with the 8 original planets!!! back in 1930 or whatever it was they messed up. admit it, and we wont have 2 bazillion plutons/planet like rocks.
xena is a cool name though.  My Very Educated Mother Just Said "Uh-oh! No Pluto!"
-Colbert Report -
Armorer
Array  Originally Posted by latenight "A pair of round objects that orbit around a point in space that is outside both objects — meaning the center of gravity (or barycenter) is between the two planets in space as with Pluto and Charon — would be called double planets" Because of the definition above in a few (billion) years, the term '3rd Rock from the Sun' will be confusing. Which planet are we talking about? Since the Moon is moving away from the Earth, the center of gravity is moving out and will eventually be outside of the Earth making the Moon a planet.
I'm glad I took Astronomy when there was only 9 planets. Try memorizing 12, 54, 100 or whatever.
Does anyone remember the little saying to help memorize the names of the planets? Donald Hollis Clinton, Jr. DHCJr@juno.com
To Teach is to Learn (Japanese Proverb)
Knowing the rule book by heart means nothing, if you don't understand the rules. -
From what I've seen in the news, there's been a bit of a revolt at the IAU meeting, with a number of astronomers rejecting the proposed definition ...
To me, the whole thing is a bit ridiculous, particularly the role that scientists are giving to PR in determining a systematic nomenclature; in a way, it kind of reminds me of aluminum vs. aluminium. The point is to be able to communicate in an effective fashion ... and the proposed definition, while being rigorous enough to communicate some effective information with the label 'planet,' is also so overbroad that it fails to convey important information that could be included by some of the alternative systematic definitions ... *shrug*
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules |