My Definition of what constitutes a planet

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

bdewoody

Guest
<font size="2">I'm what you might call an amatuer astronomer as I have always been very interested in the subject.&nbsp; I even considered astronomy as my college major but was told only a rich person should choose that major as at the time jobs were very rare.&nbsp; Anyway, if an object orbits a star and is massive enough to maintain a spherical shape it should be regarded as a planet.&nbsp;So, in that case Pluto and Ceres both qualify.</font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em><font size="2">Bob DeWoody</font></em> </div>
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm what you might call an amatuer astronomer as I have always been very interested in the subject.&nbsp; I even considered astronomy as my college major but was told only a rich person should choose that major as at the time jobs were very rare.&nbsp; Anyway, if an object orbits a star and is massive enough to maintain a spherical shape it should be regarded as a planet.&nbsp;So, in that case Pluto and Ceres both qualify. <br />Posted by bdewoody</DIV><br /><br />To me that is a good part of it.</p><p>Of course, how sperical is spherical. If Santa turns out to be football (or rugby ball) shaped does that qualify?</p><p>What if a tiny asteroid has been beaten into a sphrical shape but is only 10 miles across. Does that qualify?</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
B

BoJangles

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm what you might call an amatuer astronomer as I have always been very interested in the subject.&nbsp; I even considered astronomy as my college major but was told only a rich person should choose that major as at the time jobs were very rare.&nbsp; Anyway, if an object orbits a star and is massive enough to maintain a spherical shape it should be regarded as a planet.&nbsp;So, in that case Pluto and Ceres both qualify. <br />Posted by bdewoody</DIV></p><p style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" size="3">Yeah I&rsquo;m kind of with you on this one ( mainly becuase i like pluto as planet ). </font></p><p style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" size="3">Any object&nbsp;that is big enough to form a spherical object from its <strong>own mass</strong>, that isn&rsquo;t a star and isn&rsquo;t in orbit around another "Planet", should be classed as a planet.</font></p><p style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" size="3">Additionally that object would have an orbit of its own, and not being stuck in place by a larger "Planet", or star, or brown dwarf. </font></p><p style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" size="3">The only exception to this is if there is a gravitationally bound set of planet sized objects. In which case we could just call them &ldquo;bunch of stuff floating around&rdquo;. Seriously they could be called a planet system, though if there was an exceptional size difference between them, the largest would be called a planet the rest are either moons or asteroids. </font></p><p style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" size="3">A moon would be any object big enough to form spherical object from its <strong>own mass</strong> that is orbiting planet.</font></p><p style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" size="3">That would make all moons, "moons", moons could contain other moons and anything smaller would just be an asteroid or comet, I think gas giants are brown dwarfs anyway, so that just leaves stars being stars.</font></p><p style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" size="3">It kind of takes the confusion out of things (*scratches head*, I think), which I think has arisen because of the current knowledge at the time these were defined.</font></p><p style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm" class="MsoNormal"><font size="3"><font face="Calibri">Let&rsquo;s start our own international astronomical society and do things by voting <span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Wingdings"><span>J</span></span></font></font></p><p>Please&nbsp;note ,&nbsp;I'm and expert in nothing, and have an opinion on everything<br /><br />&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#808080">-------------- </font></p><p align="center"><font size="1" color="#808080"><em>Let me start out with the standard disclaimer ... I am an idiot, I know almost nothing, I haven’t taken calculus, I don’t work for NASA, and I am one-quarter Bulgarian sheep dog.  With that out of the way, I have several stupid questions... </em></font></p><p align="center"><font size="1" color="#808080"><em>*** A few months blogging can save a few hours in research ***</em></font></p> </div>
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The only exception to this is if there is a gravitationally bound set of planet sized objects. In which case we could just call them &ldquo;bunch of stuff floating around&rdquo;. Seriously they could be called a planet system, though if there was an exceptional size difference between them, the largest would be called a planet the rest are either moons or asteroids.&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by Manwh0re</DIV><br /><br />Busted <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-laughing.gif" border="0" alt="Laughing" title="Laughing" /></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>You just demoted Pluto and Charon from being planets to a "bunch of stuff floating around" !</p><p>Pluto and Charon are what I would call a binary dwarf planet. (Dwarf planet has kind of grown on me over the last 2 years). Charon does not orbit around Pluto, rather both orbit around the barycenter (center of mass of the combined system) which lies in between the objects. Technically this is true about all orbital system, such as the earth/moon, Sun/Earth, etc. But at least&nbsp;with the earth and moon,&nbsp;the barycenter is inside of earth. With the Pluto-Charon system, it's in the space in between them.</p><p>Wayne <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-smile.gif" border="0" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
B

BoJangles

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Busted &nbsp;You just demoted Pluto and Charon from being planets to a "bunch of stuff floating around" !Pluto and Charon are what I would call a binary dwarf planet. (Dwarf planet has kind of grown on me over the last 2 years). Charon does not orbit around Pluto, rather both orbit around the barycenter (center of mass of the combined system) which lies in between the objects. Technically this is true about all orbital system, such as the earth/moon, Sun/Earth, etc. But at least&nbsp;with the earth and moon,&nbsp;the barycenter is inside of earth. With the Pluto-Charon system, it's in the space in between them.Wayne <br />Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV><br /><br />Oops</p><p>Ill have to go back to the drawing board on that one :/</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#808080">-------------- </font></p><p align="center"><font size="1" color="#808080"><em>Let me start out with the standard disclaimer ... I am an idiot, I know almost nothing, I haven’t taken calculus, I don’t work for NASA, and I am one-quarter Bulgarian sheep dog.  With that out of the way, I have several stupid questions... </em></font></p><p align="center"><font size="1" color="#808080"><em>*** A few months blogging can save a few hours in research ***</em></font></p> </div>
 
B

baulten

Guest
<p>Planet:<br /><br />Any body with sufficient mass to assume a hydrostatic equilibrium shape which orbits a star and has cleared its neighborhood.</p><p>Dwarf Planet:<br /><br />Any body with sufficient mass to assume a hydrostatic equilibrium shape which orbits a star and has not clear its neighborhood.</p><p>Asteroid:</p><p>Any body without sufficient mass to assume a hydrostatic equilibrium shape that orbits a star.</p><p>Moon:</p><p>Any body that orbits another planet, dwarf planet, or moon in which the barycenter of gravity for the two or more objects rests below the surface of the primary object in the system.</p><p>Double, triple, or higher planetary, astroidal, or dwarf planetary system:</p><p>Any group of objects that orbit a barycenter of gravity not within any of the objects.</p><p>Of course, the last would be, say, a "Double Dwarf Planetary System" or "Triple Astroidal System", depending on the situation.&nbsp; I don't know, these are basically the current definations, with some alternations.&nbsp; I like em. <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-tongue-out.gif" border="0" alt="Tongue out" title="Tongue out" /> </p>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY