Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Sarafan on August 16, 2006, 12:30:31 pm
-
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=5&ObjectID=10396493
Really interesting. :yes: If we do find more planets around, I'd say we name at least two Capella and Shiva. :nervous:
-
It will mean that astronomy textbooks will have to be rewritten with the names Ceres, Charon and UB313
damn, the old rhymes to remember the 9 planets won't work anymore... and really UB313?! thats not a real name
-
It will mean that astronomy textbooks will have to be rewritten with the names Ceres, Charon and UB313
damn, the old rhymes to remember the 9 planets won't work anymore... and really UB313?! thats not a real name
They were going to call it UB40; the reggae planet.
-
Thats just Reckless, you know.
-
I think making Ceres a planet is the real surprise in this one.
I always thought that they'd do the unpopular thing and relegate Pluto instead.
-
Pff, I'm guessing we just want to impress the aliens coming here
-
Ceres? It's not even massive enough to round itself off! They can't make that a planet...one of their definitions is it has to be massive enough to assume a spherical form.
-
Ceres? It's not even massive enough to round itself off! They can't make that a planet...one of their definitions is it has to be massive enough to assume a spherical form.
You are, of course, wrong. Ceres is Round, and it is massive enough to "round off" as you put it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Ceres
-
No it isn't. I've seen much higher-resolution pictures of it that show it's still rather elongated.
-
I think they're still debating it. Though I love this, after all the *****ing and moaning of letting Pluto be a planet, now they've got the idea of not only keeping it a planet, but adding 3 more! I love it, I really do.
UB313, btw, the discover wants to call Xena. He is a dork.
-
I don't think they'll accept the proposal. I mean it just complicates things unnecessarily. Having different grades of planets based on these four in question seems a bit too much. If they want to do it based on atmosphere, fine, but to invent a whole grading system just to keep pluto in there....? Nah.
Pluto's always been a contended topic so it won't be too much trouble I shouldn't think to reduce it just to a large kuiper belt object. I think the fact that it's orbit, which cuts through that of uranus, is highly eliptical points at it being closer to a large comet than anything else.
-
All of these "round off" as a function of their own mass, look it up in wikipedia. And really, it's time for a new definition of planet.
-
If it has a spherical form, then I agree it's a planet.
-
Experts sitting on IAU's planet definition committee - composed of astronomers, historians and writers - concluded that in future a planet should be defined as a celestial body that is big enough for its gravity field to form a near-spherical shape.
Not spherical, near-spherical.... and that Ceres definitely is.
-
I suspect we wont come up with an efficient way of defining what is a planet and what isn't until we are capabl of geological surveys of them. I would say what defines a planet is based more around how it was made than what it looks like, things like the existence of an atmosphere, magnetic poles etc may help to define it, but I always think it's about how and when it formed as much as how and where it moves.
-
Well, that's it... now we really need a Sol : A History update ! (pssst.... Shadow0000) :nod:
-
I suspect we wont come up with an efficient way of defining what is a planet and what isn't until we are capabl of geological surveys of them. I would say what defines a planet is based more around how it was made than what it looks like, things like the existence of an atmosphere, magnetic poles etc may help to define it, but I always think it's about how and when it formed as much as how and where it moves.
Actually aside from the gas giants we can already see and determine the geological structure of them, not in great detail and not 100% exact, but we can.
-
I would say what defines a planet is based more around how it was made than what it looks like, things like the existence of an atmosphere, magnetic poles etc may help to define it, but I always think it's about how and when it formed as much as how and where it moves.
Are you implying we knock Mercury off the list?
-
I suspect that the boundaries that define 'planet' will be moved in the future, I think things like 'layered formation' will end up being counted. So a planet cannot be a very worn chunk of something bigger, it has to have formed in the manner of gravitic accumulation of material
Mars, we expect, still follows this 'gobstopper' rule, despite its volcanic inactivity, but although we can tell you the chemical composition of the 'soil', we have no real clue what is going on underneath. Even Mercury, I suspect, would still have evidence of that effect, though I doubt we can ever go there to check. In the case of the Earth and the Moon, our Mantle and the Moon are made of exactly the same material, so logic suggests that the Moon was a part knocked off of the Earth whilst the Mantle was forming. I suspect it would not show the same 'layered' formation as a planet, having being formed in a different manner. :)
-
But isn't Titan for instance, not from Saturn? Didn't it form the same way planets do? It's certainly larger than Ceres.
-
Pluto's always been a contended topic so it won't be too much trouble I shouldn't think to reduce it just to a large kuiper belt object. I think the fact that it's orbit, which cuts through that of uranus, is highly eliptical points at it being closer to a large comet than anything else.
I believe you meant to say Neptune not Uranus there.
-
Charon and Ceres are old news, I didnt know they would be called "Plutons" though..... It conjurs up armies of evil disney dogs. :shaking:
-
But isn't Titan for instance, not from Saturn? Didn't it form the same way planets do? It's certainly larger than Ceres.
Titan is a moon. Here's the thing : If the center of mass of the planetary system (the barycenter) is within the large host planet (as in Titan's case, it's within Saturn, and the Moons case, under the surface of the earth) then it is a moon, not a planet. Otherwise, it's a planet, which is why charon is no longer a moon of pluto, the barycenter is outside of pluto.
We have a really neat set of videos from titan. See a simulation that uses the actual data collected (parts of it are CG, and part of it are the real data mapped onto CG, so it's really neat because it's really a good view of what titan looks like based on real images.) Video #1 (http://www.badongo.net/vid_id.php?width=800&id=184825)
Here's another, less interesting one with just computer data, kind of neat either way. Video #2 (http://www.badongo.com/vid/184832)
-
Wait... Ceres? That's an asteroid belt asteroid, right?
-
Wait... Ceres? That's an asteroid belt asteroid, right?
It's the largest object in the belt, yes. A potential EA Base ? I think so :D
-
Quite a useful place too. Asteroid belts aren't as dense as scifi or freespace presents them. Only around planets are the asteroids so close together (the rings around some planets).
The Kupiter belt is a good inbetween spot from Earth to Mars to Ceres, and beyond. It is a bit more helpful as it is easily "hidden" and a bit weird where the planet is located.
-
Kuiper Belts rock! Why aren't they featured in more campaigns?
EDIT: :eek: I just realized I made a really bad pun up there. It was totally unintentional, please forgive me!
-
There used to be rumours that the Asteroid Belt was the remains of a planet that broke up, but I seem to recall several holes in the theory. It was spread over too large an area, the orbits made no sense and the mass of all the asteroids would need a rocky planet about twice the size of Earth, which went against physics, since the further out you get in the Solar System, the more likely you are to encounter light substances such as Hydrogen or Helium, not stuff like Silicon and Iron. What a lot of people don't realise is just how big the gap between Mars and Jupiter actually is, it's about the distance from the Sun to Mars iirc.
I suppose many things classify a planet, regular orbits/rotation times, minimal variance to axial tilt for a given value of 'minimal'. Abilty to gravitically hold lighter molecules, thus forming an atmosphere, evidence of multi-stage surface building etc etc, the list goes on....
-
Actually from what I recall the mass of all of the asteroids together would still be much smaller than Earth, remember that Ceres is pretty small but consists of a good chunk of the belt's mass.
Needless to say the orbits of the asteroids, and the overall area that the field encompasses does eliminate the "it was once a planet" idea. Possibly *very* early on there was a decent sized protoplanet smashed up in the same period where the moon was formed and Venus got its new funky day.
-
With a mass of 9.5×1020 kg, Ceres comprises about a third of the estimated total 3.0±0.2×1021 kg mass of all the asteroids in the solar system
For comparison the Moon has a mass of 7.475×1022 kg, making it more massive than all the asteroids in the solar system
-
Hmmm.. that may be a mistake on my part then, or possibly they over-estimated the amount of asteroids yet to be discovered, Still, if that's the case, it hardly qualifies Ceres as a Planet, since it is not independently formed and has no ability to develop any kind of atmosphere. Even pluto has an atmophere, albeit an incredibly thin near-frozen hydrogen one, and Mercury would have one if the Suns' gravity would let it.
-
I would like to repeat:
Experts sitting on IAU's planet definition committee - composed of astronomers, historians and writers - concluded that in future a planet should be defined as a celestial body that is big enough for its gravity field to form a near-spherical shape.
Not spherical, near-spherical.... and that Ceres definitely is.
-
Both 1 Ceres and 4 Vista are semi-spherical due to their own gravity, and probably formed just like the planets.
-
Wait... Ceres? That's an asteroid belt asteroid, right?
It's the largest object in the belt, yes. A potential EA Base ? I think so :D
Electronic Arts? Extraterrestrials? :nervous:
Kuiper Belts rock! Why aren't they featured in more campaigns?
EDIT: :eek: I just realized I made a really bad pun up there. It was totally unintentional, please forgive me!
http://www.thinkgeek.com/tshirts/science/85db/
-
what ? You never played inferno or Sol A:History ?
Try Earth Alliance.
-
Errr.... I think I played Inferno under an SCP build until it got crashy and uncooperative halfway through, at which point I gave up... I think... it's all kinda hazy...
-
what ? You never played inferno or Sol A:History ?
Try Earth Alliance.
Surely you meant to say Babylon 5 ;)
-
Different EA, but whatever works... :p
-
As of yesterday...
The Solar system says goodbye to our smallest planet. Pluto has been removed from, and been reclassified as a Dwarf Planet. The orbit around the sun being at an angle, and crossing orbits has taken it off the possible classification as a planet.
-
(http://ahom.ru/uploads/2006/august/ahom-ru_20060823_700x529_pluton_11.jpg)
This isn't over by a long shot.
-
#1. They're not calling it an asteroid, they're calling it a "dwarf planet".
#2. Pluto isn't anywhere near that large.
#3. Not saying that it wouldn't be devastating.
#4. That collision graphic is off-center. :p