1  2  |   Order by index

Mar 22, 2004, 9:28am

Orbit is already a determining factor lol. A planet must be in a regular
orbit to be considered a planet hehe, there are other requirements as well
hence why all the asteroids are not considered planets.


[View Quote]

Mar 22, 2004, 3:07pm

[View Quote] I'm sure there are free floating planets.

Mar 22, 2004, 5:49pm

Nope...

[View Quote]

Mar 23, 2004, 1:23am

[View Quote] > Nope...

And you know this... how?

Mar 23, 2004, 2:34am

He studied astrophysics.

[View Quote]

Mar 23, 2004, 9:43am

Maybe you haven't got to the astronomy part in your school? Other than that
I look up stuff about astronomy often heh.

Encyclopedia Article fromEncarta


Planet

Planet, any major celestial body that orbits a star and does not emit
visible light of its own but instead shines by reflected light. Smaller
bodies that also orbit a star and are not satellites of a planet are called
asteroids or planetoids. In the solar system, there are nine planets:
Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto.
Planets that orbit stars other than the Sun are collectively called
extrasolar planets. Some extrasolar planets are nearly large enough to
become stars themselves. Such borderline planets are called brown dwarfs.:


[View Quote]

Mar 23, 2004, 6:34pm

[View Quote] > Maybe you haven't got to the astronomy part in your school? Other than that
> I look up stuff about astronomy often heh.
>
> Encyclopedia Article fromEncarta
>
>
> Planet
>
> Planet, any major celestial body that orbits a star and does not emit
> visible light of its own but instead shines by reflected light. Smaller
> bodies that also orbit a star and are not satellites of a planet are called
> asteroids or planetoids. In the solar system, there are nine planets:
> Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto.
> Planets that orbit stars other than the Sun are collectively called
> extrasolar planets. Some extrasolar planets are nearly large enough to
> become stars themselves. Such borderline planets are called brown dwarfs.:

What makes you think I want to accept Microsoft's definition of a
planet? Maybe I have my own defintions. Technically all planetary
bodies are in orbit around at least 1 solar object. Hence why
everything in the universe is affected by gravity. It may not be an
elliptical orbit, or a round orbit.. but it's an orbit nonetheless.

These are just technicalities... as it seems even Encart is not able to
fully hit every theory and basis that one can think up. Why would a
large planet be classified as a star? They aren't an energy emission
area (on the power output side.. in comparison to the normal ratio of a
star like sol), they may give off large amounts of their own energy
though, namely because of their size. What are the limits, why should
those limits be what they are, what makes your definition of a planet
better than mine? Because you studied astronomy? No, that's not good
enough -- I'm sorry. But that's science for ya.

Mar 23, 2004, 6:43pm

It doesn't say large planets are classified as stars, it says they nearly
were stars...

"Brown Dwarf- celestial object intermediate in mass between small known
stars and large planets."

A Brown Dwarf is not considered a star...

What encarta stated is what is generally accepted by the scientific
population. (i.e. scientists from all over the world.)


[View Quote]

Mar 23, 2004, 6:52pm

[View Quote] When we're talking science, nearly almost always means always to people.

There are also a large group of scientists who study quantum physics,
does that make normal physics more important, or more true, over quantum?

You tell me.

Mar 23, 2004, 8:33pm

We're not talking about physics, that's a different topic completely...

[View Quote]

Mar 24, 2004, 1:15am

[View Quote] It was an example... you know, using a comparitive anology on a similar
subject. Astronomy, follows nearly the same principles. Maybe the
large object is just a collection of small objects? (atoms or
molecules.. or maybe even subatomic particles)... what about
classifications based on types of emission (energy, gas, negative.. etc).

It seems you're trying to answer the question with only half an answer..
something a lot of us do, myself included.

Mar 24, 2004, 1:32am

Everything is a collection of smaller objects... and I see your point, but
we're not talking about a group of asteroids sitting together being a
planet. We're talking about a "major celestial body" (i.e. not made of more
than one) that "orbits a star" and is not a sattelite of another planet.
Scientists don't classify us (humans) by the subatomic particles that make
us up do they... Atoms might be classified by subatomic particles, but
that's just how they are classified, we're talking things that are
reflecting light that are not stars -- I don't see any asteroids reflecting
visible light of their own. Don't you think the asteroid belt would be
rather bright?

[View Quote]

Mar 24, 2004, 1:35am

[View Quote] > Everything is a collection of smaller objects... and I see your point, but
> we're not talking about a group of asteroids sitting together being a
> planet. We're talking about a "major celestial body" (i.e. not made of more
> than one) that "orbits a star" and is not a sattelite of another planet.
> Scientists don't classify us (humans) by the subatomic particles that make
> us up do they... Atoms might be classified by subatomic particles, but
> that's just how they are classified, we're talking things that are
> reflecting light that are not stars -- I don't see any asteroids reflecting
> visible light of their own. Don't you think the asteroid belt would be
> rather bright?

Did you mean reflecting light or emitting light? If they didn't
reflect, they wouldn't even be visible. Nothing says asteroids can't
emit their own light (I'm sure they do).. but what's the limit to the
amount of light they can emit before it's classified as a star?

Mar 24, 2004, 9:25am

Reflecting

Star- a self-luminous gaseous celestial body of great mass which produces
energy by means of nuclear fusion reactions, whose shape is usually
spheroidal, and whose size may be as small as the earth or larger than the
earth's orbit


[View Quote]

Mar 24, 2004, 5:41pm

[View Quote] The correct word is emit. If you're considering the star as a whole,
which you are since you are unable to consider any other classification
of it. Reflection requires another source of emission...

e·mit ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-mt)
tr.v. e·mit·ted, e·mit·ting, e·mits

1. To give or send out (matter or energy): isotopes that emit
radioactive particles; a stove emitting heat.

re·flect Pronunciation Key (r-flkt)
v. re·flect·ed, re·flect·ing, re·flects
v. tr.
1. To throw or bend back (light, for example) from a surface. See
Synonyms at echo.

v. intr.
1. To be bent or thrown back: Her voice reflected off the canyon walls.
2. To give something back, as light or sound: a shiny surface that
reflects well.

Now if you could explain how the star is reflecting... which you just
said self luminous:

lu·mi·nous Pronunciation Key (lm-ns)
adj.
1. Emitting light, especially emitting self-generated light.


Just explain it for me, that's all. Plus, I'm sure not all stars use
nuclear fusion as a means of energy production. Maybe other forms of
nuclear reactions though... unless you can _prove_ every star in the sky
uses it.

Mar 24, 2004, 7:29pm

You were asking about asteroids and I replied reflect.

I said stars are self luminous.

">I don't see any asteroids reflecting
> visible light of their own. Don't you think the asteroid belt would be
> rather bright?

Did you mean reflecting light or emitting light? If they didn't
reflect, they wouldn't even be visible. Nothing says asteroids can't
emit their own light (I'm sure they do).. but what's the limit to the
amount of light they can emit before it's classified as a star?"


What I said answering your question about reflecting, and what a star's
requirements are:

Reflecting

Star- a self-luminous gaseous celestial body of great mass which produces
energy by means of nuclear fusion reactions, whose shape is usually
spheroidal, and whose size may be as small as the earth or larger than the
earth's orbit

[View Quote]

Mar 24, 2004, 7:30pm

BTW it has to be visible light that they are reflecting.

Mar 25, 2004, 1:28am

[View Quote] Well yeah.

Apr 15, 2004, 11:40pm

Sorry for bringing up an old topic but there's news out that says Sedna is
too small to be a planet hehe

"Pictures of the newly discovered planetoid Sedna show it moonless, spinning
alone some 8 billion miles from Earth.

Sedna, though, still might have a moon that was hiding somewhere or too dark
to be photographed by the Hubble Space Telescope, said the object's
discoverer.

At 800 to 1,000 miles in diameter, Sedna is too small to qualify as a
planet. It is only about three-fourths the size of Pluto, its closest
neighbor. Objects that size should complete one rotation in a matter of
hours, but observations so far show it takes Sedna 20 to 40 days, possibly
due to the drag of a moon, the discoverer said."



From: http://wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,63072,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_7

[View Quote]

1  2  |   Order by index