Margim
Footy's back.
I think a better name for our new planet would be "Bob".
tenth planet?
- Thread starter mrgenius
- Start date
De Lorimier
North American Scum
Yep. Titan A.E. was a nice movie Margim. 
h4ppy
You sir, pineapple?
How undignified, Robert is a better choice.
valamas
Prince
We have planets that orbit the sun. Would a body be called a planet if it does this, plus spin also on its own access? Do asteroids spin on their own access while orbiting the sun?
If it looks like a ball. Can we call it a planel?
If it looks like a ball. Can we call it a planel?
The Greeks called `em planets -- "wanderers" -- because they didn't follow the seemingly set orbits of the other stars. By that standard, I suppose, Sedna is a planet.
If it is, I'm happy one was discovered in my lifetime.
If it is, I'm happy one was discovered in my lifetime.
vbraun
Raytracing
I belive Sedna should be a planet. The only thing i have a problem with is the name. Why cant it be named after a Roman God? All of the other planets are like that. If you cant name after a Roman God why a god of the sea? We have one already. (Neptune)
For those of you not in the know. Sedna is the Inuit goddess of the Sea. Sea mammals were said(according to the Inuit) to of arisen from the mythical women Sedna when she was murdered by her own father. Her dismembered finger joints turned into the seal, walrus, whale, and others. She became the major sea deity, excerising control over all sea creatures from her home on the seabed. Her other names are Takanakapsaluk and Nuliayuk(which is her more official name) Now....which name would you prefer? Sedna or the others? I don't see why people have a problem with the name. What names from the Roman gods would you chose for it? At some point your going to run out of names anyways so might as well start now.
And there IS a offical commitiee of scientists(not just astrophyiscs and the likes) that picks out names for planets, asteriods and so forth. All the names(requested and suggested) need to met curtian requirements, such as to name an asteroid after someone, that someone has to be dead, or have done something very very important. There is a asteroid named after Ringo Starr(2 Rs right?) Think there is one named after Julius Ceasar, and well anyways you get my point. If you made one up of regular joe shmoes then you would get stuff named "Bonerland", "
America Rules" and other inane useless drivel
Pretty much everything in space spins,AFAIK that is.
The old requirements for something to be a planet was that it had to orbit the sun(ie not be a moon), be large enough that gravity made it round, and also have sufficent gravity to clear it's surroundings of smaller objects. But well Pluto doesn't even fit that last one cause Charon doesn't orbit Pluto like all the other moons, Pluto and Charon orbit a point of space inbetween them.
And there IS a offical commitiee of scientists(not just astrophyiscs and the likes) that picks out names for planets, asteriods and so forth. All the names(requested and suggested) need to met curtian requirements, such as to name an asteroid after someone, that someone has to be dead, or have done something very very important. There is a asteroid named after Ringo Starr(2 Rs right?) Think there is one named after Julius Ceasar, and well anyways you get my point. If you made one up of regular joe shmoes then you would get stuff named "Bonerland", "
America Rules" and other inane useless drivel
Pretty much everything in space spins,AFAIK that is.
The old requirements for something to be a planet was that it had to orbit the sun(ie not be a moon), be large enough that gravity made it round, and also have sufficent gravity to clear it's surroundings of smaller objects. But well Pluto doesn't even fit that last one cause Charon doesn't orbit Pluto like all the other moons, Pluto and Charon orbit a point of space inbetween them.
It's hard to define just what makes a "planet" a "planet". It's really just a matter of how we choose to define it. Many scientists now hold Pluto and other objects in that region of the solar system to be "minor planets", that is planetoids or asteroids. I'm going into a planetary geology major and I tend to consider objects in that region of the solar system to by planetoids (that is minor planets). While they orbit the Sun they also reside in a region of the solar system where there are many similar objects. While Pluto and other objects like Sedna are large they are merely the largest examples of Kuiper Belt objects just like Ceres and Vesta are the largest examples of the lage population of Main Asteroid Belt objects.
I think the planets/planetoids/asteroids orbits should be taken into effect when trying to classiffy it. Due to Sedna's orbit on it's closest approach it's 13billion(km or M?) away, and it's farthest is over 130billion. And Pluto's orbit takes it inside Neptune's orbit, so at somepoint it's no longer the farthest one away from the sun. I think this will happen soon or it already has, can't remember
The Person
Deity +2
I think it should be called "Rupert", after some astronomer's parrot.
But "Bob" seems a nice name for a planet, too. (I'm going to Bob today, and I won't be back for a few decades.
)
Akka
Moody old mage.
I would call a planet any objet that is heavy enough so that we can't get out of its attraction by any natural means.
Glad you defended this very appropriate name. Sedna - the icy goddess of a distant ocean. Her hands and limbs were already frozen solid as she tried to pull back into the boat. Her father hacked these to pieces
and Sedna's limbless body sunk but survived in the form of a whale.Now the planet Sedna occupies the nearest reaches of our solar system's oort belt, which is a region assumed populated by myriad bodies like large asteroids. Perhaps we can name those, as we find them, from the great encyclopaedia of things aquatic, or arctic.
Still, the name's not official. Those astronomers should know better than to just pick a name by themselves and release it to the local paper. The International Astronomical Union (to which they belong) names celestial objects. Conventionally it favours any suggestions by the finders. Now it might throw out the good name of Sedna in this case just because the astronomers broke protocol.
***
@Akka. By "we" you mean dudes in spacesuits? That's a great way to define a planet! Relate it to timeless human parameters.
I think Sedna's half our moon's diameter, so she's a planet.
What's with the red colour and shiney surface? I wonder what she's made of?
Aphex_Twin
Evergreen
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2002
- Messages
- 7,474
@h4ppy
They are running out of Greco roman names. And since THEY found it, they can name it whatever they want.
They are running out of Greco roman names. And since THEY found it, they can name it whatever they want.
Akka
Moody old mage.
Well, I would say naked dudes for the theorical statement (as in : if you can't get your own personnal body out of this place by your own personnal means, then it's a planet), but I understand that a place where the temperature is -240 °C, and without atmosphere, would require some protection ^^
And well, yes, I like this definition also ^^
I consider that, psychologically, a stellar body from where we can't get out without artificial means is a place where we're "condemn" to live on, so it's a valable definition of a planet
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
If we limit ourselves to stuff big enough to become basically spherical due to its own gravity, the Solar System contains basically four types of objects:
1) The Sun. With some 99.9% of the total mass, it pretty much is the Solar System.
2) The big gaseous planets; Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune. They've got practically all non-solar mass in the System.
3) The biggish rocky things; the Earth, Venus, Mars, Mercury, the Moon, and a few of the biggest asteroids.
4) The icy things; the larger satellites of the gas giants, trans-Neptunians and a couple other biggish things like Chiron.
(Plus a couple intermediates like Io.)
Everybody agrees the Sun isn't a planet but that the gas giants are. The problem is coming up with a non-arbitrary line thru the later two groups which corresponds roughly to people's intuitive idea of what a planet is. I'd exclude the icy things happily, but where do we draw the line with the rocky ones?
One definition that has been suggested is that a planet is a non-stellar object which has more mass than all other objects in similar orbits combined. By this criterion, Mercury, Venus, the Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Nepture qualifies; possibly also some unknown very heavy trans-Neptunian object, but certainly not Ceres, nor Pluto or any other known trans-Neptunian.
Or simply toss the concept of "planet". It's not hard to argue that Jovians are closer to brown dwarf stars than to Terrestrial planets, which in turn are closer to rocky-metallic asteroids.
Or return the designation of "planet" to the seven wandering lights of the sky: Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn.
1) The Sun. With some 99.9% of the total mass, it pretty much is the Solar System.
2) The big gaseous planets; Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune. They've got practically all non-solar mass in the System.
3) The biggish rocky things; the Earth, Venus, Mars, Mercury, the Moon, and a few of the biggest asteroids.
4) The icy things; the larger satellites of the gas giants, trans-Neptunians and a couple other biggish things like Chiron.
(Plus a couple intermediates like Io.)
Everybody agrees the Sun isn't a planet but that the gas giants are. The problem is coming up with a non-arbitrary line thru the later two groups which corresponds roughly to people's intuitive idea of what a planet is. I'd exclude the icy things happily, but where do we draw the line with the rocky ones?
One definition that has been suggested is that a planet is a non-stellar object which has more mass than all other objects in similar orbits combined. By this criterion, Mercury, Venus, the Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Nepture qualifies; possibly also some unknown very heavy trans-Neptunian object, but certainly not Ceres, nor Pluto or any other known trans-Neptunian.
Or simply toss the concept of "planet". It's not hard to argue that Jovians are closer to brown dwarf stars than to Terrestrial planets, which in turn are closer to rocky-metallic asteroids.
Or return the designation of "planet" to the seven wandering lights of the sky: Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn.
Bozo Erectus
Master Baker
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2003
- Messages
- 22,389
My definition of a planet is a spherical body that has enough mass to have significant gravity.
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
And what's significant gravity?
There are hundreds of objects in the Solar System with enough mass to crunch themselves into essentially spherical form. Many of the smaller ones are actually better spheres than the Sun or Saturn, since those ones rotate so quickly, leading to polar flattening.
I do assume you also exclude stars.
There are hundreds of objects in the Solar System with enough mass to crunch themselves into essentially spherical form. Many of the smaller ones are actually better spheres than the Sun or Saturn, since those ones rotate so quickly, leading to polar flattening.
I do assume you also exclude stars.
RoddyVR
Veteran Board NESer
i though the neighbor star was called Centauri and the reason the game was called "Alpha" Centauri is cause you were supposedly landing on the first planet of the system.
does anyone know if Centauri realy has planets? or can we not see that yet?
also, on a side note, does anyone rememeber how far Centauri is from us(on average or closest and farthest limit)
Bozo Erectus
Master Baker
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2003
- Messages
- 22,389
Not sure, somewhere between Lunar gravity and Martian gravity.
(stars not included)
addiv
Hero of our time
No, star system is called Alpha Centauri. There are probably other ... Centauri systems too. And yes, AFAIK, there are a number of planets there.
Regarding the question what is a planet, I like the idea of calling the first 8 planets in the solar system planets, and anything beyond it planetoids, because they're too small and too far away.
Similar threads
