|
Defining Planethood
|
|
| spacer | Date: Monday, 06.06.2016, 03:21 | Message # 106 |
 Star Engineer
Group: Users
Israel
Messages: 1258
Status: Offline
| 
what about all of that?
"we began as wanderers, and we are wanderers still"
-carl sagan
-space engine photographer
|
| |
| |
| steeljaw354 | Date: Monday, 06.06.2016, 03:21 | Message # 107 |
 World Builder
Group: Users
Pirate
Messages: 862
Status: Offline
| I could see maybe sedna, makemake, 2007 OR10 (new measurement) but everything else is too small.
|
| |
| |
| HarbingerDawn | Date: Monday, 06.06.2016, 03:21 | Message # 108 |
 Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8717
Status: Offline
| Quote steeljaw354 (  ) everything else is too small
Why?
All forum users, please read this!
My SE mods and addons
Phenom II X6 1090T 3.2 GHz, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, GTX 970 3584 MB VRAM
|
| |
| |
| SpaceEngineer | Date: Monday, 06.06.2016, 03:21 | Message # 109 |
 Author of Space Engine
Group: Administrators
Russian Federation
Messages: 4800
Status: Offline
| Quote steeljaw354 ( ) I could re work this
1. Must be Round
2. Must not be fusing hydrogen or deuterium, then it is a star.
3. Must not orbit another object which fits this definition.
4. Must not be a black hole.
I could suggest objects which fit into this definition:
- Neutron star or white dwarf.
- Young star, which does not begin fusion yet.
- Old brown dwarf, which does not fuse deuterium and lithium anymore.
- Solidified droplets of melted water/rock/iron few millimeters across.
And which does not fit:
- Two identical planets, orbiting common barycenter (binary planet) which of them is moon?
- Quickly rotating body such as Haumea (your first definition must be replaced with "hydrostatic equilibrium shape").
- Small planet after giant collision, after which it have no more "round" shape.
|
| |
| |
| midtskogen | Date: Monday, 06.06.2016, 03:21 | Message # 110 |
 Star Engineer
Group: Users
Norway
Messages: 1674
Status: Offline
| Quote steeljaw354 ( )
1. Must be Round
2. Must not be fusing hydrogen or deuterium, then it is a star.
3. Must not orbit another object which fits this definition.
4. Must not be a black hole.
I have many round objects at home, and I really hope that none of them fail criteria 2-4.
NIL DIFFICILE VOLENTI
|
| |
| |
| HarbingerDawn | Date: Monday, 06.06.2016, 03:22 | Message # 111 |
|
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8717
Status: Offline
| Quote steeljaw354 ( ) Which is the sole reason why we don't consider some objects planets because ("there are to many")
No, no it isn't. Stop listening to Alan Stern, he's the most insane and unreasonable authority figure in this entire debate.
All forum users, please read this!
My SE mods and addons
Phenom II X6 1090T 3.2 GHz, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, GTX 970 3584 MB VRAM
|
| |
| |
| steeljaw354 | Date: Monday, 06.06.2016, 03:22 | Message # 112 |
|
World Builder
Group: Users
Pirate
Messages: 862
Status: Offline
| Proof?
|
| |
| |
| steeljaw354 | Date: Monday, 06.06.2016, 03:22 | Message # 113 |
|
World Builder
Group: Users
Pirate
Messages: 862
Status: Offline
| 1. Must have hydrostatic equilibrium
2. Must orbit a star
3. Must have a minimum radius of 1000KM
4. Must have never have been a star
Binary objects that fit this definition are planets (Pluto and Charon, Earth and Moon maybe)
Edited by steeljaw354 - Monday, 06.06.2016, 19:30 |
| |
| |
| Mosfet | Date: Monday, 06.06.2016, 03:22 | Message # 114 |
 World Builder
Group: Users
Italy
Messages: 754
Status: Offline
| still off-topic I see I mean...
"Time is illusion. Lunchtime doubly so."
Douglas N. Adams
My mods
Asus x555ub: cpu i5-6200u - ram 4gb - gpu nvidia geforce 940m 2gb vram
Edited by Mosfet - Monday, 06.06.2016, 20:42 |
| |
| |
| HarbingerDawn | Date: Monday, 06.06.2016, 03:22 | Message # 115 |
|
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8717
Status: Offline
| Quote steeljaw354 ( ) Must have a minimum radius of 1000KM
Why?
Quote steeljaw354 ( ) Proof?
I'm tempted to turn your logic about aliens back on you and say "prove that he isn't". But instead, I'll just leave you with this: https://www.theguardian.com/science....ate-row
In this article, Alan Stern claims that the demotion of Pluto was part of a decades-long conspiracy to discredit Clyde Tombaugh, a theory which is, conveniently, impossible to prove or disprove. He also claims that Mike Brown pursued the demotion of Pluto just to sell more books.
These statements are pretty unreasonable, offered with no supporting evidence, and are unbecoming a rational scientist.
All forum users, please read this!
My SE mods and addons
Phenom II X6 1090T 3.2 GHz, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, GTX 970 3584 MB VRAM
|
| |
| |
| steeljaw354 | Date: Monday, 06.06.2016, 03:22 | Message # 116 |
|
World Builder
Group: Users
Pirate
Messages: 862
Status: Offline
| Well my logic of aliens and whatever is deleted now so it is irrelevant to this discussion. It is true that those statements are illogical however every scientist says unreasonable things once and a while, who are we to blame them for that? Everybody makes mistakes even you. Not everybody is perfect.
Isn't unreasonable the scientists who voted weren't actually planetary scientists and only 4% voted on a definition?
“There was an astronomer named Brian Marsden who for decades had a grudge against Tombaugh. He had public fights that many people observed. Tombaugh died in 1997 and Marsden went on a jihad to diminish his reputation by removing Pluto from the list of planets. He eventually found a way to do that at a convention of astronomers, a meeting with thousands of people, of which a very small fraction – 4% – went to a room where the vote was taken.”
"It annoys him that the science press didn’t question the process"
"you shouldn’t go to an astronomer for expert advice on planetary science."
"And it must have “cleared the neighbourhood” around its orbit, which is to say that it must be gravitationally dominant over surrounding objects. Pluto, the elliptical orbit of which is affected by Neptune’s gravity, fails this test."
“If Neptune had cleared its zone,” he has said, “Pluto wouldn’t be there.” Therefor Neptune isn't a planet by this rule.
"Stern says that if Earth was located in Pluto’s position in the solar system it also wouldn’t qualify as a planet. “It’s ridiculous,” he says. He even claims that, according to the maths, Brown’s Planet Nine would not quality for planetary status, “no matter how massive it is”.
Edited by steeljaw354 - Monday, 06.06.2016, 23:50 |
| |
| |
| HarbingerDawn | Date: Monday, 06.06.2016, 03:23 | Message # 117 |
|
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8717
Status: Offline
| Quote steeljaw354 ( ) every scientist says unreasonable things once and a while, who are we to blame them for that? Everybody makes mistakes even you. Not everybody is perfect.
It just goes to show that Alan Stern isn't some unbiased, well-reasoned expert in the field who stands a cut above the rest, which means that it is entirely unreasonable for you to keep citing him as an authority and keep citing solely his arguments, while ignoring the arguments of others in the field who are just as qualified and even more level-headed than he is.
In the rest of your quotes, you are basically just arguing that the IAU's definition of a planet is dumb. I don't think there's a single person here who would disagree with that. That does NOT mean that Stern's definition is in any way better.
You asked for evidence that Stern was unreasonable and arguably crazy. I gave it to you.
All forum users, please read this!
My SE mods and addons
Phenom II X6 1090T 3.2 GHz, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, GTX 970 3584 MB VRAM
|
| |
| |
| Watsisname | Date: Tuesday, 07.06.2016, 05:19 | Message # 118 |
 Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
United States
Messages: 2613
Status: Offline
| The Alan Stern proposal for defining planethood has no strong basis in the physical or dynamical characteristics of the objects. As such, we do not find it to be a satisfactory classification system.
What planetary scientists do find sensible is a classification system that incorporates the fact that there is a multiple-order-of-magnitude separation between two regimes of objects, so we can separate planets from dwarf planets by something that is very much grounded in physics.
|
| |
| |
| midtskogen | Date: Tuesday, 07.06.2016, 12:08 | Message # 119 |
|
Star Engineer
Group: Users
Norway
Messages: 1674
Status: Offline
| The "clearing the nabourhood" criterium does sound a bit silly. Is a potential planet a proto-planet until it has finally "cleared" the last piece of rock (how big?) in its orbit, even if it takes a billion year or more?
NIL DIFFICILE VOLENTI
|
| |
| |
| steeljaw354 | Date: Tuesday, 07.06.2016, 19:27 | Message # 120 |
|
World Builder
Group: Users
Pirate
Messages: 862
Status: Offline
| If Neptune had dominated its orbital zone zone, Pluto wouldn't be there, thus Neptune doesn't dominate it's orbital region. So it's not a planet by this rule radius doesn't matter in this definition if you have a round stone 5mm in size and set into a "clear" orbit around the sun it's a planet, but Pluto isn't,. Does this definition honestly make sense? Makes ZERO sense in my mind. And if you compare that stone next to Pluto, it is invisible, Pluto is ALOT larger, but not a planet by this rule. Thats so illogical. It would be better to set a size limit, 1000KM perhaps? It's alot simpler.
Edited by steeljaw354 - Tuesday, 07.06.2016, 19:42 |
| |
| |
ENG
New site
Israel 
Pirate 
United States 
Russian Federation 
Norway 
Italy 