Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: aldo_14 on August 24, 2006, 09:09:42 am
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/5282440.stm
-
No he's a cartoon dog!! :drevil:
Seriously, does this mean it becomes an asteroid, planetoid or what?????
-
Its a Pluton, we knew that :D
This raises the question if its not a planet does it still count in the 12 planet thing coming into play soon. ?
-
Its a Pluton, we knew that :D
This raises the question if its not a planet does it still count in the 12 planet thing coming into play soon. ?
No, If you read the article it states that that proposal was rejected the "Council of elders" (HAR, HAR)., and it was agreed to demote Pluto with them.
-
I bet this is a government intiative to raise grade averages.
Most burberry skinned chav'lites round my way cant even list the first three planets, Even though they happen to live on one...
-
I forsee as a result of this a catastrophic collapse in School and University marks for Astonomy classes worldwide for the next few years.
-
I can a see a few years down the line, a succesful manne dmission passsing Neptune and crashing into Pluto cos some cock back in 2006 said, Nah never mind its only a little one... We dont need to mention it..
-
Its a Pluton, we knew that :D
This raises the question if its not a planet does it still count in the 12 planet thing coming into play soon. ?
I think they're not using the term 'pluton' as it's already a geological one (for subcutaneous magma? Not sure offhand).
-
So, it's a "dwarf planet?" That's still a planet! Otherwise why would the word planet be in it?
What's the point in reducing he number of planets (or at least what WE consider planets) from 9 to 8, anyway? I don't see the point. It's smaller than any other planets, but still...
-
Distance might be a factor, Otherwise Mercury would be pWned too i s'pose...
-
GREAT
so we can have reverse thread in three weeks when some jerk finds yet another spherical object from kuiper belt and creams his pants and then pluto is promoted as a planet once again
i swear, it never ends
-
Everything ends somewhere. Apocalypse even destroys astronomers. ;)
-
I always thought Pluto was really a Kuiper Belt object.
-
While this is a bit sad, IMHO it makes much more sense than the previous proposal.
-
Here's a proposal for a name for small spherical, planet shaped objects that aren't moons.
Plutonoids!!!! :drevil:
-
Plutons covers thatm, But plutonoids will mess with Dyslexics ,more so i vote for that !
-
Here's a proposal for a name for small spherical, planet shaped objects that aren't moons.
Plutonoids!!!! :drevil:
Nah.
I'd call them Bobbins
-
Yay Plutonoids, something for the Klingons to fly around!! :drevil: :lol:
-
What's the point in reducing he number of planets (or at least what WE consider planets) from 9 to 8, anyway? I don't see the point. It's smaller than any other planets, but still...
Can you give me any sensible explaination why Pluto is a planet but UB-313 isn't? The problem with calling Pluto is a planet is that any time you find anything bigger than it you have to rewrite all the textbooks. That's good if you make textbooks but it's a pain in the arse for everyone else.
Pluto is a Kuiper belt object. I've always thought that for as long as I understood what the term was. The only thing we can do is call it what it is. Calling it a planet just because people like it being a planet is just bad science. In many ways I'm really glad this happened. It's pretty good proof of the fact that scientists are willing to change popularly held beliefs if they proved to be wrong. For over 50 years pretty much every scientist called Pluto a planet. Now even though it's hugely unpopular they've all basically stood up and said "We were wrong. We understand the solar system better than we did in 1939. It's not a planet"
I like that a lot.
-
I'm just glad they decided one way or another. I was tired of them being "indecisive" about Pluto and UB313...
-
What's the point in reducing he number of planets (or at least what WE consider planets) from 9 to 8, anyway? I don't see the point. It's smaller than any other planets, but still...
Can you give me any sensible explaination why Pluto is a planet but UB-313 isn't?....
I didn't know a thing about UB-313 apart from its name. So I cannot give you an explanation of any sort.
-
What's gonna happen to all the 9 planet sayings to remember them?
-
What's the point in reducing he number of planets (or at least what WE consider planets) from 9 to 8, anyway? I don't see the point. It's smaller than any other planets, but still...
Can you give me any sensible explaination why Pluto is a planet but UB-313 isn't?....
I didn't know a thing about UB-313 apart from its name. So I cannot give you an explanation of any sort.
It's right next to UB-312
(oh, and it's also larger than Pluto; along with its moon it's the most distant known object in the solar system)
-
Yay Plutonoids, something for the Klingons to fly around!! :drevil: :lol:
That's no Plutonoid... it's a space station!
-
As I said somewhere else:
This decision actually makes good scientific sense. Pluto really never was nothing more than a very large example of a Kuiper belt object. Of course, at the time of its discovery, the Kuiper belt wasn't really known, so it was given the designation of "planet" instead. (Even that wasn't without controversy, though.) In terms of the model of solar system formation, which explains why the inner planets are small and rocky and the outer are large gas giants, Pluto never really fit in. At least this definition makes a hell of a lot more sense than the whole "12 planets now, possibly thousands in the future" idea that was tossed around at the conference a week or so ago.
And it's certainly not "goodbye" to Pluto; it's not like it's going anywhere. :p It's actually taken on an important new role, as the prototype of a whole new classification known as "dwarf planets." This decision certainly doesn't affect the status of the New Horizons mission, which should hopefully get us our first close-up pictures of Pluto and Charon around 2015 or so.
(All of that being said, the sentimental side of me does feel a little bit sad for it...)
-
i have a feeling pluto will get re-promoted to a planet in its distant future when its orbit flatens out and gets normalized by the gravitational forces of the other planets. thats asasuming they dont change the scientific definition again.
-
Pluto's been going around the sun for billions of years like that, so I really don't think we can expect that to happen anytime soon. I'd bet the sun will swell up and fry the Earth before we can even consider worrying about Pluto's orbit changing.
As for Pluto's "demotion", I'm actually somewhat pleased. I've always disliked calling it a planet, since it didin't follow the same genesis that the other planets did. I am perfectly understanding for those who are irritated about it though.
-
orbits arent exactly set in stone. aside from gravity pulling inward from the sun and other planets (which is countered by planets velocity), you also have the vertical tug which occurs when the "pluton" or whatever deviates from the ecliptic plane of the solar system. this tug pulls the pluton down when its above the plane and up when its below. this is why the 8 planets are all pretty much flat, it just seems to me that pluto is a tad late at achieving this. yes it may take housands if not millions of years, but its likely. to me pluto is either a protoplanet or a comet in an eccentrc (for a comet anyway) orbit. pluto can be a planet if its orbit changes to fit the new scientific definition.
-
the thing is that up down pull has no friction so it loses no energy, so it never stops,the reason why the other planets are so close is because they formed from a disk of that shape.
-
what likely defined the plane is the 2 largest objects in the solar system, being the sun and jupiter. all the other objects most likely followed suit, as it would have taken less time for their orbits to change to jupiters, than vice versa. jupiter would have deviated slightly under the varing gravitational forces in the solar system, however its mass dampened that effect. therefore id assume that jupiters orbit is only slightly different from when the planet was formed. im curious if its known if the solar system's plane is the same as the rest of the galaxy.
-
The way I've always understood the formation of the solar system the planets formed out of the already flat accretion disc not all over the place and then moving into settled orbits.
-
Karajorma gets a cookie. (In other words, he's right.)
-
that is one theory, but that doesnt mean other theorys need to be cast aside. it could have very well been a diffuse ball of dibrits before forming objects and then flattened out later.
-
The disc theory is the only one that properly explains planetary rotation atm iirc, if you consider that the Sun is orbitting the milky way, as well as spinning itself. As you say, it doesn't make the others suggestions impossible, but far les likely with regards to what we currently know.
-
The current theory is that the solar nebula condensed out of a *roughly* spherical cloud, which then flattened out as it collapsed, which also increased its rotation (conservation of angular momentum). The planets formed after the inner solar disk flattened out, while the outer regions formed into the Kuiper Belt and Oort Cloud.
So there's some truth to it forming from a spherical cloud, but a distinction needs to be made on the sequence of events in its formation and evolution.
-
still its not too far off to say that the mass which eventually became jupiter helped to stabilize and flatten the accretion disc.
-
Well, the theory goes that Jupiter only needs to gain something like 12% more mass to start nuclear reactions in the core (It's already very 'hot') which would have led to it being a binary partner to the Sun, with Europa etc being a seperate planetary system.I wouldn't be suirprised if a mass of that type had an effect on the formation of the system, chances are moderate to high, I would say, that at least one or two of Jupiters' moon were possibly inner planets at some point, between Mars and Jupiter and got caught in the Gravitational tide.
-
If you're interested in Jupiter's moons, I suggest checking this out:
http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~sheppard/satellites/ (http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~sheppard/satellites/)
The Galilean moons (Io through Callisto) formed in conjunction with Jupiter, which is why they all have nice, *almost* circular, low-inclination orbits. But Jupiter's gravity captured a great deal of asteroids and other things, which end up in highly eccentric and inclined orbits, and many of them are retrograde (orbiting backwards relative to Jupiter's rotation). Pretty fascinating stuff. :)
-
It's right next to UB-312
(oh, and it's also larger than Pluto; along with its moon it's the most distant known object in the solar system)
I thought the percent error made it possibly larger or smaller than pluto
-
Depends on who you listen to.
The BBC put it at 2600km which would make it bigger than Pluto's 2360.
Wikipedia has Pluto at 2306±20 km and UB-313 at 2400 km ± 100 km which could make Pluto just about the bigger one of the two if the errors are in its favour.
Other sites have different sizes for both of them. Till anyone says for certain I think the general assumption is that it's bigger than Pluto.
-
Dammit, if it is a celestial body that orbits our sun and has it's own moon I say it's a planet (just a tiny one)!
Here are some indications that a few people feel the same way
http://www.worth1000.com/cache/gallery/contestcache.asp?contest_id=11570&display=photoshop
My favorite one is the Einstien one...
-
Funny.
The product of pure distilled stupidity but funny.
Seriously let it go. Pluto just isn't a planet. Had it been discovered today it never would have been called a planet in the first place. The only reason anyone wants to call it a planet is sentimentality and that's a piss poor reason for a scientific designation.
-
Well said. :yes:
-
Isn't by definition Neptune not a planet either?
-
Isn't by definition Neptune not a planet either?
I beg your pardon?
-
Isn't by definition Neptune not a planet either?
I beg your pardon?
Well, the current definition involves 3 conditions the last of which supposedly invalidates Pluto from being one.
A planet is a celestial body that
(a) is in orbit around the Sun
(b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape
(c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit
Condition (c) is what doesn't make Pluto a planet, but by it's orbit crossing with Neptune (again, condition (c)) Neptune status also becomes unclear. Of course Earth, Mars and Jupiter become also fuzzy, but by having it's orbit crossing with asteroids that don't come under any condition except (a) their status is clearer.
Anyway, personally I think this is not a scientific problem but rather a language one. Planets, dwarf planets and asteroid are too broad terms to designate stellar objects, as they have too many similarities between them.
-
Isn't by definition Neptune not a planet either?
I beg your pardon?
Well, the current definition involves 3 conditions the last which supposedly invalidates Pluto from being one.
A planet is a celestial body that
(a) is in orbit around the Sun
(b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape
(c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit
Condition (c) is what doesn't make Pluto a planet, but by it's orbit crossing with Neptune (again, condition (c)) Neptune status also becomes unclear. Of course Earth, Mars and Jupiter become also fuzzy, but by having it's orbit crossing with asteroids that don't come under any condition except (a) their status is clearer.
Anyway, personally I think this is not a scientific problem but rather a language one. Planets, dwarf planets and asteroid are too broad terms to designate stellar objects, as they have too many similarities between them.
I see.
The vague or nonexistant scientifically accepted definition of planet is exactly what started this mess. Most Kuiper objects fill that classical definition (and actually C does not invalidate either Pluto or Neptune, because their orbits do not really cross so close to each other to have significant impact), and we seriously cannot just have 10 oddball objects rounding the star so far away to be completely insignificant. Trying to define"planet" is what more or less dropped our dear Pluto from the list.
-
I see.
The vague or nonexistant scientifically accepted definition of planet is exactly what started this mess. Most Kuiper objects fill that classical definition (and actually C does not invalidate either Pluto or Neptune, because their orbits do not really cross so close to each other to have significant impact), and we seriously cannot just have 10 oddball objects rounding the star so far away to be completely insignificant. Trying to define"planet" is what more or less dropped our dear Pluto from the list.
But the problem is that condition (c) is exactly what caused Pluto from being dropped as a planet. Read the IAU reports about the redefinition.
-
I see.
The vague or nonexistant scientifically accepted definition of planet is exactly what started this mess. Most Kuiper objects fill that classical definition (and actually C does not invalidate either Pluto or Neptune, because their orbits do not really cross so close to each other to have significant impact), and we seriously cannot just have 10 oddball objects rounding the star so far away to be completely insignificant. Trying to define"planet" is what more or less dropped our dear Pluto from the list.
But the problem is that condition (c) is exactly what caused Pluto from being dropped as a planet. Read the IAU reports about the redefinition.
Facing defeat and combatting with is own hazy memories, our hero valiantly googles and...
comes up with rebuttal!
The phrase refers to an orbiting body (a planet or protoplanet) "sweeping out" its orbital region over time, by gravitationally interacting with smaller bodies nearby. Over many orbital cycles, a large body will tend to cause small bodies either to accrete with it, or to be disturbed to another orbit. As a consequence it does not then share its orbital region with other bodies of significant size, except for its own satellites, or those governed by its own gravitational influence. This latter restriction excludes objects whose orbits may cross but which will never collide with each other due to orbital resonance, such as Jupiter and the Trojan asteroids or Neptune and the Plutinos.
-
I see.
The vague or nonexistant scientifically accepted definition of planet is exactly what started this mess. Most Kuiper objects fill that classical definition (and actually C does not invalidate either Pluto or Neptune, because their orbits do not really cross so close to each other to have significant impact), and we seriously cannot just have 10 oddball objects rounding the star so far away to be completely insignificant. Trying to define"planet" is what more or less dropped our dear Pluto from the list.
But the problem is that condition (c) is exactly what caused Pluto from being dropped as a planet. Read the IAU reports about the redefinition.
Facing defeat and combatting with is own hazy memories, our hero valiantly googles and...
comes up with rebuttal!
The phrase refers to an orbiting body (a planet or protoplanet) "sweeping out" its orbital region over time, by gravitationally interacting with smaller bodies nearby. Over many orbital cycles, a large body will tend to cause small bodies either to accrete with it, or to be disturbed to another orbit. As a consequence it does not then share its orbital region with other bodies of significant size, except for its own satellites, or those governed by its own gravitational influence. This latter restriction excludes objects whose orbits may cross but which will never collide with each other due to orbital resonance, such as Jupiter and the Trojan asteroids or Neptune and the Plutinos.
Odd, then why isn't Pluto a planet? :confused:
-
Pluto's orbit is often described as 'crossing' that of Neptune. In fact, Pluto's nodes (the points at which the orbit crosses the ecliptic) are both situated outside Neptune’s orbit and are separated by a distance of 6.4 AU (that is, over six times the distance of the Earth from the Sun). Furthermore, due to the orbital resonance between them, Pluto executes 2 full cycles while Neptune makes 3; this means that when Neptune reaches the 'closest' point on the orbit, Pluto remains far behind and when Pluto in turn reaches that point, Neptune is far (over 50°) ahead. During the following orbit of Pluto, Neptune is half an orbit away. Consequently, Pluto never gets closer than 30 AU to Neptune at this point in its orbit.
Neptune can not be excluded as a planet because it never has the chance to clear out Pluto. Pluto and Neptunes orbits never actually intercept in the first place.
-
i personally think a better definition for planet as a round object in orbit around the sun that has an orbital plane which is close to paralell with the ecliptic plane. that definition would exclude pluto but the scientists probibly had a reason not to use that one and have all reached their consensous.
-
I see.
The vague or nonexistant scientifically accepted definition of planet is exactly what started this mess. Most Kuiper objects fill that classical definition (and actually C does not invalidate either Pluto or Neptune, because their orbits do not really cross so close to each other to have significant impact), and we seriously cannot just have 10 oddball objects rounding the star so far away to be completely insignificant. Trying to define"planet" is what more or less dropped our dear Pluto from the list.
But the problem is that condition (c) is exactly what caused Pluto from being dropped as a planet. Read the IAU reports about the redefinition.
Facing defeat and combatting with is own hazy memories, our hero valiantly googles and...
comes up with rebuttal!
The phrase refers to an orbiting body (a planet or protoplanet) "sweeping out" its orbital region over time, by gravitationally interacting with smaller bodies nearby. Over many orbital cycles, a large body will tend to cause small bodies either to accrete with it, or to be disturbed to another orbit. As a consequence it does not then share its orbital region with other bodies of significant size, except for its own satellites, or those governed by its own gravitational influence. This latter restriction excludes objects whose orbits may cross but which will never collide with each other due to orbital resonance, such as Jupiter and the Trojan asteroids or Neptune and the Plutinos.
Odd, then why isn't Pluto a planet? :confused:
Yeah pluto meets all 3 conditions for being a planet so why isn't it? :mad: :hopping:
-
I see.
The vague or nonexistant scientifically accepted definition of planet is exactly what started this mess. Most Kuiper objects fill that classical definition (and actually C does not invalidate either Pluto or Neptune, because their orbits do not really cross so close to each other to have significant impact), and we seriously cannot just have 10 oddball objects rounding the star so far away to be completely insignificant. Trying to define"planet" is what more or less dropped our dear Pluto from the list.
But the problem is that condition (c) is exactly what caused Pluto from being dropped as a planet. Read the IAU reports about the redefinition.
Facing defeat and combatting with is own hazy memories, our hero valiantly googles and...
comes up with rebuttal!
The phrase refers to an orbiting body (a planet or protoplanet) "sweeping out" its orbital region over time, by gravitationally interacting with smaller bodies nearby. Over many orbital cycles, a large body will tend to cause small bodies either to accrete with it, or to be disturbed to another orbit. As a consequence it does not then share its orbital region with other bodies of significant size, except for its own satellites, or those governed by its own gravitational influence. This latter restriction excludes objects whose orbits may cross but which will never collide with each other due to orbital resonance, such as Jupiter and the Trojan asteroids or Neptune and the Plutinos.
Odd, then why isn't Pluto a planet? :confused:
Yeah pluto meets all 3 conditions for being a planet so why isn't it? :mad: :hopping:
hey dudes i'm not there, don't ask me
maybe because pluto is situated in kuiper belt with ****load of stuff so it really does not fill "cleared the neighbourhood criteria"
but i can google
he IAU...resolves that planets and other bodies in our Solar System be defined into three distinct categories in the following way:
(1) A planet [1] is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.
(2) A "dwarf planet" is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape [2], (c) has not cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit, and (d) is not a satellite.
(3) All other objects [3] orbiting the Sun shall be referred to collectively as “Small Solar System Bodies”.
[1] The eight planets are: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune.
[2] An IAU process will be established to assign borderline objects into either "dwarf planet" and other categories.
[3] These currently include most of the Solar System asteroids, most Trans-Neptunian Objects (TNOs), comets, and other small bodies.
-
(2) A "dwarf planet" is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape [2], (c) has not cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit, and (d) is not a satellite.
Isn't that rather redundant? I mean, if it's a satellite it's orbiting a planet(or other Solar Body), not the Sun.
-
(2) A "dwarf planet" is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape [2], (c) has not cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit, and (d) is not a satellite.
Isn't that rather redundant? I mean, if it's a satellite it's orbiting a planet(or other Solar Body), not the Sun.
one day the sun will explode and black hole red dwarf giant neutron nova superbrown stuff, and then it's important to know!
-
:lol:
-
(http://www.userfriendly.org/cartoons/archives/06aug/uf009427.gif)
QFT