Charas-Project

Off-Topic => All of all! => Topic started by: Bill3000 on August 18, 2006, 02:00:42 AM

Title: Jupiter outraged at n00bs becoming planets
Post by: Bill3000 on August 18, 2006, 02:00:42 AM
Article (http://www.iau2006.org/mirror/www.iau.org/iau0601/iau0601_release.html)

Quote
The world's astronomers, under the auspices of the International Astronomical Union (IAU), have concluded two years of work defining the difference between "planets" and the smaller "solar system bodies" such as comets and asteroids. If the definition is approved by the astronomers gathered 14-25 August 2006 at the IAU General Assembly in Prague, our Solar System will include 12 planets, with more to come: eight classical planets that dominate the system, three planets in a new and growing category of "plutons" - Pluto-like objects - and Ceres. Pluto remains a planet and is the prototype for the new category of "plutons."


Quote
The part of "IAU Resolution 5 for GA-XXVI" that describes the planet definition, states "A planet is a celestial body that (a) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (b) is in orbit around a star, and is neither a star nor a satellite of a planet." Member of the Planet Definition Committee, Richard Binzel says: "Our goal was to find a scientific basis for a new definition of planet and we chose gravity as the determining factor. Nature decides whether or not an object is a planet."


Ceres, (The first asteroid discovered, between Mars and Jupiter) Charon (Moon of pluto) and 2003 UB_313 (Currently unnamed and recently discovered Kupiter Belt object, although unoffically named "Xena", although that won't be its offical name) shall all be immediately promoted to planethood. There is a chance that up to 53 planets shall be in our solar system once this definition goes through.

Now you might be a little shocked at why Charon of all objects is going to be promoted to a planet, especially since it seems to violate (b) in the new definition of a planet. The reason why is that Pluto and Charon are a double planet system. A double planet is a system of two planets in which the center of gravity of the two objects are not within the surface of a more massive object - the two planets orbit each other. Technically the Earth orbits its barycenter as well, (another name for the center of gravity) but it is within the surface of the Earth.

This is awesome. More planets!
Title:
Post by: Tomi on August 18, 2006, 02:05:27 AM
And 9 isn't hard enough for some people to memorize...

I think they should just keep the ones they have, maybe let Charon in as a special case, not quite a planet, but the rest is just cluttering our view of the solar system and making all of our science text books completely obsolete.
Title:
Post by: Bill3000 on August 18, 2006, 02:08:32 AM
Eh, the importance is not science textbooks. The importance is in how it matters in science, really. While it is tragic that we can no longer have little kids memorize the planets of the solar system, it's more important that there is now a "pluton" category, that the term "double planet" is offically recongized, and that we have an offical well defined term for a planet. These definitions are important for astronomers, not for the populace. Besides, could you have seen the outrage that there would have been if Pluto was demoted?
Title:
Post by: WarxePB on August 18, 2006, 02:08:54 AM
I wouldn't worry about it, because I suspect their vote will be "just keep everything the same".
Title:
Post by: DragonBlaze on August 18, 2006, 02:09:19 AM
Lets just keep the ones we have. What differance will it make that a few rocks floating in space are labeled under a new catagory? The system we have now works just fine, no point in changing something that works.
Title:
Post by: I Have a Sandwich on August 18, 2006, 02:09:47 AM
Adding planets to the universe is like adding a state to the USA. It means that the songs I use to remember them will be unusable!
Title:
Post by: drenrin2120 on August 18, 2006, 02:13:13 AM
Well, come on guys, science is progression. I support it. For one, jsut because you're comfortable with a set system doesn't mean it shouldn't be changed when you know that there's a better definition for it, a more precise definition. Isn't that what science is all about? Combining and sharing data to form the most precise definitions and explanations for ... well everything? Even if that means change?

i'm sure it worked find for pilgrims to believe the world was flat and they would eventually just fall off the face of the earth if they went to far. It was like a security blanket, because if the world WAS round... why, that would raise question they wouldn't have an answer for, which would destroy their security blanket.
Title:
Post by: I Have a Sandwich on August 18, 2006, 02:18:25 AM
Dren... the pilgrims were after Columbo... -bus. Anyways, science is about precision, not over complification. Planets/steroids/Meteors. Simple. If this system goes through, we'll have to classify things in the classification. "This is a planet, and this is also a planet by new definition" "But the new one is smaller" "Oh. *Adds more classifications*"
Title:
Post by: Meiscool-2 on August 18, 2006, 02:21:54 AM
So long as one of them is named: "Planet Meiscool", I don't mind any of this.
Title:
Post by: drenrin2120 on August 18, 2006, 02:22:43 AM
Quote
Originally posted by I Have a Sandwich
Dren... the pilgrims were after Columbo... -bus. Anyways, science is about precision, not over complification. Planets/steroids/Meteors. Simple. If this system goes through, we'll have to classify things in the classification. "This is a planet, and this is also a planet by new definition" "But the new one is smaller" "Oh. *Adds more classifications*"


I know that the pilgrims didn't really think the world was flat, it was before that. I was using them as a rough reference. And I know that the comparison is a little out of proportion but it's the same idea.
Title:
Post by: Kijuki_Magazaki on August 18, 2006, 03:15:27 AM
no more sphere thingies as planets? ._.
Title:
Post by: I Have a Sandwich on August 18, 2006, 03:19:08 AM
But what about things like the Borg mothership? What would that be classified as?
Title:
Post by: Ace of Spades on August 18, 2006, 03:37:46 AM
Oh dear, no more "My very excellent mother just served us nine pizzas."
Quote
Originally posted by I Have a Sandwich
But what about things like the Borg mothership? What would that be classified as?

Death?
Title:
Post by: Kijuki_Magazaki on August 18, 2006, 03:59:59 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Ace of Spades
Oh dear, no more "My very excellent mother just served us nine pizzas."
quote:
Originally posted by I Have a Sandwich
But what about things like the Borg mothership? What would that be classified as?

Death?


hey I remember that! those days will no longer be there =
Title:
Post by: Razor on August 18, 2006, 04:37:22 AM
As long as they name them after the staff of Charas, I'd be happy.
Hey look, FFL2and3rocks! is crashing into Earth! We're doomed!

Knowing my luck, Razor would explode or hurtle into deep space, never to be seen again. :|
Title:
Post by: ~*Sweet Ichifo*~ on August 18, 2006, 07:42:40 AM
Pretty soon there will be other life forms in our solar system found....


I think.


53 planets? There has to be at least a bug.
Title:
Post by: Drace on August 18, 2006, 07:48:37 AM
I vote for planet Drace! Where everyone gets free beer I stole from Razor's Pub!
Title:
Post by: Moosetroop11 on August 18, 2006, 11:15:38 AM
I'm not a planet, I'm a black hole. I eat everything.
Title:
Post by: Emerates on August 18, 2006, 02:04:48 PM
I love how all of the current events discussed on this forum eventually go from relatively serious to complete and total lunacy...  *joins in*

There should also be defining shapes/characteristics for a space-type-object-thingy to be classified as a planet.  Such as landmarks, evidence of water, possibility to support life, orbit pattern, size, ruffly spherical shape, rotation on a set axis, gravitational pull, etc.  A GIANT ASTEROID would most likely not qualify as a planet, even if it does meet the size criteria, because an asteroid would most likely be unable to support life or have definite landmarks.  Sure, the moon has certain landmarks, but that's mainly because of external objects smashing into it.  The moon is NOT a planet because it cannot support life, it has no water, and etc.  It is just a big dirt clod orbiting the Earth.

To explain further, landmarks (as by my definition) would be generated by the planet itself.  Earth has clearly defined oceans, mountains, etc., caused by volcanic activity and pressure between different tectonic plates.  GIANT ASTEROIDS do not have tectonic plates, they are just giant floating rocks.  Even Mars has landmarks created by its own forces.  

So that is my scientific opinion.
Title:
Post by: Revolution911 on August 18, 2006, 03:29:44 PM
alienz r nubs ne-way
Title:
Post by: Linkizcool on August 18, 2006, 03:46:44 PM
I'll name a wormhole.

"The USS White Dwarf is entering Wormhole Linkizcool on its way to Planet Charas"
Title:
Post by: Bill3000 on August 18, 2006, 07:48:48 PM
Sorry to rain on your parade, guys, but the IAU requires all planets to be named after deities of creation.


Quote
There should also be defining shapes/characteristics for a space-type-object-thingy to be classified as a planet. Such as landmarks, evidence of water, possibility to support life, orbit pattern, size, ruffly spherical shape, rotation on a set axis, gravitational pull, etc. A GIANT ASTEROID would most likely not qualify as a planet, even if it does meet the size criteria, because an asteroid would most likely be unable to support life or have definite landmarks. Sure, the moon has certain landmarks, but that's mainly because of external objects smashing into it. The moon is NOT a planet because it cannot support life, it has no water, and etc. It is just a big dirt clod orbiting the Earth.

To explain further, landmarks (as by my definition) would be generated by the planet itself. Earth has clearly defined oceans, mountains, etc., caused by volcanic activity and pressure between different tectonic plates. GIANT ASTEROIDS do not have tectonic plates, they are just giant floating rocks. Even Mars has landmarks created by its own forces.


Okay, by your definition, a good amount of the classical planets ain't planets. :p Mercury is more of a hunk of rock than Luna is - Luna actually DOES have frozen water. Mercury *is* a huck of rock with no atmosphere and the like. Yet it's classified as a planet. Mars doesn't have tectonic plates, and by your definitions Titan and Europa are more likely to be classified as planets. As well, your definition isn't easily measurable. We havn't visited Pluto, for example, to find landmarks that would qualify for your definition. Besides, it doesn't solve the problem we are having here - how to classify pluto-like objects.

The IAU definition has the advantage of being easy to measure. There's basically a set mass and diameter range minimum for how an object can be nearly round, e.g. as opposed to some traditional asteroid shape. As well, it offically defines the double planet (which I find to be totally awesome, since double planets are cool) and classifies a new group of objects (Plutons, in the same way planets are classified as Terrestrials or Gas Planets) that will be able to be studied easier due to the new classification.

As I said earlier, though, science is for the scientists, not the populace. It's much more important to find out how advantagous this new system will work for those who will study it, not for people with only a vague interest in it.
Title:
Post by: FFL2and3rocks on August 18, 2006, 08:11:38 PM
Heh, as soon as I clicked this topic, they started talking about this on TV.
Title:
Post by: Meiscool-2 on August 18, 2006, 09:30:46 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Bill3000
Sorry to rain on your parade, guys, but the IAU requires all planets to be named after deities of creation.


Such as Meiscool, the creator of Cool.....         -aid.
Title:
Post by: Razor on August 18, 2006, 10:29:35 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Linkizcool
"I want White Dwarf to enter me."

lol


So, do you think we're going to get stuck with a whole bunch? I hope not. Screw you, other planets!
Title:
Post by: Emerates on August 18, 2006, 11:25:35 PM
Hey, man!  I would study it!  I wanted to be an astronaut.... once....

As for making me look like an idiot, thanks.  However, I just think that a GIANT POTATO-shaped thing shouldn't be classified as a planet, because then it would make all the cool planets look bad.

Damn....  I used to be really smart, and now my intelligence is starting slip away over the years...
Title:
Post by: drenrin2120 on August 18, 2006, 11:46:21 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Meiscool

Such as Meiscool, the creator of Cool.....         -aid.


You are a god!
Title:
Post by: Djanki on August 19, 2006, 06:39:31 PM
Hey...If there are new planets discovered, does that mean they'll remake Sailor Moon (or make a sequel) so that it includes the new three planets? 'Cause I've got a bomb shelter with no T.V. prepared just in case they do (otherwise known as my room)....

*rim shot*...

...No, but seriously, if that happens, it'll be sorta good. I mean, 'Sailor Ceres'? Boy, won't Locke be happy...Ceres in a miniskirt...

*rim shot*...

Maybe after that, when they find a new asteroid, they'll call it 'Tellah', or 'Jenova', or 'Sephiroth'. Or, in a worse case senario, 'Meteo'.

*rim shot*...

...Oh, and not all of the planets are named after deities of creation...technically. Mercury was the Messenger of the Gods according to Roman Mythology. Then again, who knows? I might be wrong...

...Aw, crap...I forgot...Locke's wife is  Celes, not  Ceres...
...
...Now, not the face! Not the face!
*Shotgun blast*....

...*rim shot*...
Title:
Post by: Weregnome on August 22, 2006, 02:42:42 PM
I heard that the apparant Planet X has been named Xena. Is this information correct?
Title:
Post by: Emerates on August 22, 2006, 03:01:56 PM
It's a nickname given to it by the leader of the astronomer team that discovered it a few years back.  Xena is not the official name of Planet X, even though that's what a lot of people (who have heard of it, at least,) probably call it.

Also, in researching the answer to your question, I found that 'Xena' is about 3 times farther from the sun than pluto.
Title:
Post by: oooog on August 22, 2006, 03:15:18 PM
I think that we should cut down on planets instead.

"Name all of the planets in our solar system."
"Earth"
"Very good!  Next topic!"

See, look at the time saved.  Everything else should be called... Spaceballs.  Named after Mel Brooks awesome movie, and it somewhat realistic.