It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Toromos
Don't most planetary scientists consider the prospect of defining what a "planet" is somewhat arbitrary?
Originally posted by nogirt
I think for historical reasons, considering when it was discovered, Pluto should be refered to as a planet.
Originally posted by Toromos
Don't most planetary scientists consider the prospect of defining what a "planet" is somewhat arbitrary? It is a kind to geographer's trying to define what a continent is. For example, why is Europe a continent? It's not a separate land mass. Indeed, it's separation is political in nature. Why not consider Greenland, or Madagascar continents? Is it size? Why impose a size limit?
I guess my point is, for most scientists studying these objects, the appellation of "planet" or some other label is rather meaningless.
There's a good interview with Mike Brown, the discoverer of Sedna, Xena, and the other KBO at:
www.discover.com...
where he discusses the arbitrariness of defining what a planet is.
For example, why is Europe a continent?
Originally posted by Mogget
For example, why is Europe a continent?
It shouldn't be. It's one of the dumbest definitions in all of human history. A bit like calling Charon a planet.
Originally posted by Mogget
I don't mind Charon being called a planet, but if the IAU settles for this, then I will be extremely annoyed if our own Moon is not similarly defined. The situation is different, but I find it astonishing that an object that is in both Earth orbit and solar orbit (and is of considerable size) is not going to be included in the updated list.
Originally posted by Mogget
I really can't understand this. It would only require a slight modification of the proposed definition, since our Moon is the only large planetary satellite in the Solar System that has an orbit of this nature.
All planetary moon are in the Solar Orbit...
If the Earth orbited around the Moon, as Pluto orbits around Charon, then the Moon should be considered a Planet.
Originally posted by Mogget
Don't make the mistake of thinking that the Earth doesn't orbit the Moon, simply because the centre of gravity is within the body of Earth itself.
And the center of gravity of every other planet and its moon(s) lies within the parent planet. The difference with Pluto/Charon is that the center of gravity is outside of both bodies.
Originally posted by Mogget
And the center of gravity of every other planet and its moon(s) lies within the parent planet. The difference with Pluto/Charon is that the center of gravity is outside of both bodies.
Absolutely, and that does make the Pluto-Charon system unique. It's just that I also consider the Earth-Moon system to be unique, but for a different reason
Damn, why can't we just settle for eight major planets, and demote Pluto to a "KBO" ? It would make far more sense.
Originally posted by Mogget
If you want to be pedantic, then they do indeed move around the Sun with their respective planetary companions. However, the orbit of our Moon is different to that of any other large planetary satellite in the Solar System. That's because the gravitational pull of the Sun acting on it is roughly twice that of Earth. That means that it can be argued that the Moon is actually in solar orbit as well as Earth orbit.
Every other large satellite in the Solar System experiences a stronger gravitational force from it's parent planet than it does from the Sun. Only some of the outer satellites of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune are pulled more strongly by the Sun than they are by their planetary parents, and these can be ruled out as planets because they are too small and irregular.
Originally posted by Mogget
That makes the Moon unique.
Originally posted by Mogget
Don't make the mistake of thinking that the Earth doesn't orbit the Moon, simply because the centre of gravity is within the body of Earth itself.
[edit on 20-8-2006 by Mogget]
I'm sorry but if it clearly isn't moving about in orbit around the moon than it is in orbit around the moon and thus the Moon is not a planet, it is a moon.
Originally posted by Mogget
I gave this problem further consideration, and then came up with the following......
A planet should be defined as "any object that is massive enough to gravitationally dominate the region of space in which it resides".
That sounds like an excellent starting position to me. It would instantly reduce the number of known major planets to eight, since Pluto does not gravitationally dominate anything outside of its three satellites. It would also rule out the promotion of Ceres, Charon, and 2003UB313 to planetary status (which is something that should be avoided at all costs).
In my humble opinion, of course
I'm sorry but if it clearly isn't moving about in orbit around the moon than it is in orbit around the moon and thus the Moon is not a planet, it is a moon.
The Earth and Moon orbit each other around their common centre of mass, just like every other two body system in the known universe !
Actually the Earth doesn't orbit around a center mass other than the Sun (which is in an eliptical orbit), the moon orbits around the Earth's center orbit of Mass. Just as Jupiter's moons orbit around Jupiter's center orbit of mass.
Originally posted by Mogget
Actually the Earth doesn't orbit around a center mass other than the Sun (which is in an eliptical orbit), the moon orbits around the Earth's center orbit of Mass. Just as Jupiter's moons orbit around Jupiter's center orbit of mass.
Anyone else care to try ?
Originally posted by Timeseer
Please reframe from making one line responses or you will be fairly warned by moderators.