Which planet do you find more interesting for studying and exploration? (Page 3) ColonelKusanagi: Pluto is death to the Greeks but there are many mythologies, why not look up your poem? or even pluto for that matter  duncan124: I have done thank you. There are not many pictures of the planet. Which makes me wonder why because they can see very far past it. I think it may have been a BBC radio play where I came across the discription referted to.  LiptonCambell: How could the Greeks have considered Pluto as the planet of Death- it wasn't discovered till the late 1920's.... Either way, to help resolve some confusion, the definition of a planet, which was re-defined in 2006 by the International Astronomical Union (IAU), causing Pluto to be demoted, is as follows; 1. is in orbit around the Sun, 2. has sufficient mass to assume hydrostatic equilibrium (a nearly round shape), and 3. has "cleared the neighbourhood" around its orbit. It's important to note that this definition only applies to celestial bodies within our solar system, since we cannot accurately determine many things about extra-solar planets- especially in regards to number 3. However, unlike the assertion made earlier, having "geologic activity and atmospheres" has nothing to do with whether or not something is considered a planet However, some criticisms can be made regarding this issue. For example, when the IAU voted as to what defines a planet, the vote was made on the last day of a ten day seminar- so of the 2,700 people in attendance, less than 500 actually voted. Equally, given how many planets get impacted by asteroids every year, you can hardly consider even Earth as having a "cleared neighbourhood" LiptonCambell: >>>Which makes me wonder why because they can see very far past it. We can see other stars, and large, distant planets that are illuminated by stars- but Pluto, Ceres, Haumea, Makemake, and Eris are so distant that they are nearly invisible to astrologists- in fact, only Ceres and Pluto have been observed with any significant detail, and it's suspected that there are another 50 or even another 200 Dwarf Planets in the Kepler belt region that has been come to known as the "trans-Neptunian objects"- and from that distance, our own star doesn't look any larger than the ones we see in the night sky ColonelKusanagi: Pluto was their name for the keeper of the underworld, so Pluto is death to the ancient Greeks. "discover a planet? why not stick this handy name on it!" LiptonCambell: Huh? Who said Astrologists? I don't think I did, but if I did, I blame the previous topic on that issue- I certainly got good at spelling it... And thanks for the update on Pluto....that seemed strange that a civilization 2000 years old knew of a planet that wasn't known to exist more than 90 years ago.....  StuckInTheSixties: My emphasis in CAPS "We can see other stars, and large, distant planets that are illuminated by stars- but Pluto, Ceres, Haumea, Makemake, and Eris are so distant that they are nearly invisible to ASTROLOGISTS- in fact, only Ceres and Pluto have been observed with any significant detail ..." etc. etc. etc. Maybe eyeglasses are needed? Or this is a case of brainwashing by One Bar?  (Edited by StuckInTheSixties) StuckInTheSixties: Omacron Persii 8: If nominated, I will not run! If elected, I will not serve! ** ** quote actually originates from William Tecumseh Sherman, and was more famously said by Lyndon Baines Johnson.  smoke4ever: Pluto= A ball of rock and water ice, topped with methane ice. Eris= Brighter than Pluto, and slightly bigger, Eris also is rock and water ice with a methane ice covering. ColonelKusanagi: and both are currently considered dwarf planets, i'm more interested in seeing elven planets myself. StuckInTheSixties: Sherman didn't serve in political office, as LBJ did. From Wiki: Sherman was proposed as a Republican candidate for the presidential election of 1884, but declined as emphatically as possible, saying, "I will not accept if nominated and will not serve if elected." (Not to deviate the conversation away from astrolo ... cough cough ... astroNomy, the planets, etc.) ColonelKusanagi: now i'm seeing stars ... so ... it doesn't actually specify that the planet be in out solar system so how about PSR B1620-26 b Methuselah the oldest planet there are so very many. so if stars are granuals then would that make planets like powder? StuckInTheSixties: Well, we don't know that. We only know what we have evidence of. And we don't have evidence that planets are more numerous than stars. ColonelKusanagi: just hypothesizing based on what i have. if necessary i'll be as specific as possible but i'm not all that smart. considering most in the field thought "extrasolar planets" were hogwash until one was found i'm comfortable making a few assumptions. i'm no astronomer and never will be but that doesn't mean i'll be sold on the earth being flat ect ... its not a faith thing just what seems corollary to me. ColonelKusanagi: (also even if every star had 30 planets it wouldn't match up from grain to powder. i'm not keen on the incredible math these fellows are but that much i'm able to estimate) | Science Chat Room 1 Person Chatting Similar Conversations |
