Perfection
The Great Head.
Excluding Pluto and 2003UB313, yesGogf said:
No. There's no reason to, if a planet were to lose it's magnetic field (which is possible) it would cease to become a planet, against all sense.Gogf said:
What is a planet?
- Thread starter Gogf
- Start date
Gogf
Indescribable
Perfection said:
On that point: when earth periodically flips its magnetic field, does it temporarily lose it?
Perfection
The Great Head.
I think having a similar semimajor axis would count, although this potentially wouldn't work with highly eccentric worlds like Sedna. You'd probobly need to include perihelion and aphelion measurements as well.Gogf said:It's unclear. Does similar orbit mean the same orbit? Does similar orbit mean nearly the same orbit within a certain distance? Does similar orbit include a scaled-down version of another orbit? Does similar orbit include the same orbit on another angle?
It's a good way to phrase it, and keeps the definition simple, but "similar orbit" should be definied somewhere. Unless, of course, it already is, but I don't think it is
.
Ultima Dragoon
FIRE! FIRE! FIRE!
Gogf said:
I wouldn't expect it to.
Perfection
The Great Head.
No, it just gets disorganised and the net magnetic field decreases. Think of it like having three magnets bundled together so all norths face one way and all souths the other and flipping one around. The amount of magnetism is the same but it now partially cancels each other out and you get reduced net magnetic field.Gogf said:
Meleager
Stoned as a Statue
Well that makes more sence now...Gogf said:No
The point was that I was primarily arguing with others points you made, not the actual definition.
But, on another note, should the definition involve a magnetic field at all? Do all known planets (potentially exclusing Pluto and 2003 UB313) have a magnetic field?
My first go at a definition for planets involved magnetic feild but Perfection had a fit about it (@ Perfection,
).Hey, maybe we can cheat and just say that the nine biggest objects in the solar system are always planets... bye bye pluto and mercury, jupiters moons are taking over!
EDIT - Wow! X-post with everyone!!
Perfection
The Great Head.
Well let's see that would depend if we made "big" based on mass or volume be (assuming the sun don't count):Meleager said:
Note that only Ganymede gets included
Masswise
1. Jupiter
2. Saturn
3. Neptune
4. Uranus
5. Earth
6. Venus
7. Mars
8. Mercury
9. Ganymede (Jupiter's Moon)
Volumetrically
1. Jupiter
2. Saturn
3. Uranus
4. Neptune
5. Earth
6. Venus
7. Mars
8. Ganymede (Jupiter's Moon)
9. Titan (Saturn's Moon)
Meleager
Stoned as a Statue
@ Perf, sounds good, we will just have to teach all the kiddies how to say "Ganymede"
Perfection
The Great Head.
Nah, we'll just let them butcher it like everyone butchers Uranus.Meleager said:
I think in all this crossposting you neglected to check out this post of mine
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=3146656&postcount=73
I think you will find it rather interesting.
Meleager
Stoned as a Statue
Perfection said:
Yes, I have heard of this before. Quite interesting really. I wont even try to make a definition which includes it.
Perfection
The Great Head.
Well, you could have an exception for unstable systems. It would work in mine I would think as both collectively control the orbit. They would be a sort of "double planet system" or "co-planets". I'd imagine if we had two large bodies orbiting around each other in an orbit around the sun we could call it the same thing (but in a different configuration, of course)Meleager said:
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
Nope, those are meteorites. A meteoroid is a chunk of solid matter swizzing around in space that's too small to be called an asteroid, basically.Ultima Dragoon said:
I thought the main definition of a planet was an object which is primarily orbitting the sun?
Ultima Dragoon
FIRE! FIRE! FIRE!
So then all the rocks in the asteroid belt are planets?
I think not.
I think not.
Similar threads
