| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| ericlboyd |
Posted - 17 Aug 2006 : 02:48:22
Aha!
Orcus is a possible pluton!!!
http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2006/08/16/nine_no_longer_panel_declares_12_planets/?page=2
--Eric |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Kiaransalyn |
Posted - 20 Aug 2006 : 07:45:21
It becomes very amusing when you discover the IUPAC terminology for a five membered ring containing arsenic. |
| GothicDan |
Posted - 20 Aug 2006 : 01:43:53
Science is fun. :D |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 20 Aug 2006 : 01:16:28
I love that name..."Gas Giant".
Right up there with the "noble gases". |
| GothicDan |
Posted - 20 Aug 2006 : 00:50:38
quote:
Apparently you have to have a sufficient mass to create a spherical object.
More mass means more gravity, more gravity (in all vectors) means more 'inward' force towards the center of mass. That's why things like dust clouds aren't exactly spherical and such. :)
And the inner planets, at least, are comprised primarily of rock and water. The Gas Giants aren't - like Jupiter is mostly hydrogen and helium. |
| Kuje |
Posted - 20 Aug 2006 : 00:12:20
Since some asked about astrologers:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060819/sc_afp/spaceastronomy_060819214235 |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 19 Aug 2006 : 23:14:16
Well, this thread has certainly been informative. Thanks all.
But if we are going to have "plutons", then what will the, uh, "regular" planets be called? |
| Soturno |
Posted - 19 Aug 2006 : 20:38:11
But where is Gareth Dragonsbane??? Only him leading his high level party can stop Orcus!!! Aaahhh Are we lost? |
| ericlboyd |
Posted - 19 Aug 2006 : 19:22:09
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
That definition works for me -- especially if a diameter is specified. Round and orbiting the sun, instead of something else, should be a given.
The diameter requirement is implicit. Apparently you have to have a sufficient mass to create a spherical object. Given that most planets are composed of rock and water, a sufficient diameter implies sufficient mass to be a spherical object. Something like that. The number 429 miles sticks in my head, but I might be wrong there.
--Eric |
| Kiaransalyn |
Posted - 19 Aug 2006 : 19:13:55
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
But speaking of astrologers (inadvertent though it may be), won't adding more planets screw with how they do things? Or do they just go by the visibile ones?
That was my question too.
I'm sure they'll wait for the final decision then take it from there. After all, they now take into account the movements of Pluto when compiling horoscopes. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 19 Aug 2006 : 19:03:41
quote:
Originally posted by GothicDan
You mean astronomers* Wooly? ;)
(Here to be a pain!)
* If you don't, then I'll have to have a conversation with these astrologers as to who's doing the defining around here...
Yeah, them too! 
But speaking of astrologers (inadvertent though it may be), won't adding more planets screw with how they do things? Or do they just go by the visibile ones? |
| GothicDan |
Posted - 19 Aug 2006 : 18:02:22
You mean astronomers* Wooly? ;)
(Here to be a pain!)
* If you don't, then I'll have to have a conversation with these astrologers as to who's doing the defining around here... |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 19 Aug 2006 : 17:35:16
quote:
Originally posted by ericlboyd
The solution is to define anything that is round (which implies a certain diameter) and primarily orbits the sun (i.e. not a moon) as a planet. Those of size Pluto or smaller are a subgroup of planets known as "plutons". Pluto, Charon, "Xena", and Ceres meet this criteria, but many additional plutons are suspected to exist.
--Eric
That definition works for me -- especially if a diameter is specified. Round and orbiting the sun, instead of something else, should be a given. I don't see why astrologers are having a hard time coming up with a definition like this. |
| ericlboyd |
Posted - 19 Aug 2006 : 13:42:36
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
quote:
Originally posted by GothicDan
You can't really retcon science. Things were never 'always like this.' It's just that we change our definitions of things or learn new things, or both. :)
That's what I mean...what's the rationale behind changing the definition of "planet"?
If I understand correctly, the reason for "changing" the definition of a "planet" is that there is no precise definition of a "planet." In other words, if Pluto qualified, then "Xena" (which is bigger than Pluto) and possibly 50 other Kuiper belt objects (most of which are believed to exist but have not yet been found) also qualified.
I believe the majority of astronomers wanted to come up with a definition by which the "classical" planets (including Pluto) still qualified but did not result in 50+ planets.
The solution is to define anything that is round (which implies a certain diameter) and primarily orbits the sun (i.e. not a moon) as a planet. Those of size Pluto or smaller are a subgroup of planets known as "plutons". Pluto, Charon, "Xena", and Ceres meet this criteria, but many additional plutons are suspected to exist.
--Eric
|
| GothicDan |
Posted - 19 Aug 2006 : 04:59:47
quote:
That's what I mean...what's the rationale behind changing the definition of "planet"?
No clue. I wouldn't have done it. But, they're astrophysicists, so what do you expect? ;) |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 19 Aug 2006 : 04:03:24
Hmmmm, wonder if there's any ghouls running around on it? |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 19 Aug 2006 : 04:01:15
quote:
Originally posted by GothicDan
You can't really retcon science. Things were never 'always like this.' It's just that we change our definitions of things or learn new things, or both. :)
That's what I mean...what's the rationale behind changing the definition of "planet"? |
| GothicDan |
Posted - 19 Aug 2006 : 03:36:04
You can't really retcon science. Things were never 'always like this.' It's just that we change our definitions of things or learn new things, or both. :) |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 19 Aug 2006 : 03:15:43
quote:
Originally posted by GothicDan
Retcon astrology, hurry!
... Sorry to any out there who follow it. I'm a bad, bad atheist.
I can't believe they are willing to retcon astronomy though. |
| Mace Hammerhand |
Posted - 18 Aug 2006 : 22:41:55
Better they named it Orcus, they could have called it Lokus
and to understand this one...check out what it means...
http://dict.leo.org/ende?lp=ende&lang=de&searchLoc=0&cmpType=relaxed§Hdr=on&spellToler=on&search=lokus&relink=on |
| GothicDan |
Posted - 18 Aug 2006 : 22:36:26
Retcon astrology, hurry!
... Sorry to any out there who follow it. I'm a bad, bad atheist. |
| Kiaransalyn |
Posted - 18 Aug 2006 : 21:41:32
quote:
Originally posted by ericlboyd
Orcus is a possible pluton!!!
http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2006/08/16/nine_no_longer_panel_declares_12_planets/?page=2
This begs the question 'What do astrologers say about Orcus?' |
| Aes Tryl |
Posted - 18 Aug 2006 : 17:47:25
LOl lo and behold the Dark Lord of Terror from the Abyss the great Orcus. . .
Orcus: bark. . .bark. . |
| EytanBernstein |
Posted - 18 Aug 2006 : 10:05:40
quote:
Originally posted by ericlboyd
Aha!
Orcus is a possible pluton!!!
http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2006/08/16/nine_no_longer_panel_declares_12_planets/?page=2
--Eric
Heck, I might just rename my dog Orcus. |
| Kuje |
Posted - 17 Aug 2006 : 20:26:13
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
You know... Back when I was still on the WotC boards, there was a guy who kept starting "Orcus rules!" threads every couple of months. I'm betting he's loving the idea of a planet named Orcus. 
Nightfall. :) He's still on my AIM list. |
| GothicDan |
Posted - 17 Aug 2006 : 17:05:43
Hehe. I remember that guy.
Annoying, he was. And heck, I like Orcus. ;) |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 17 Aug 2006 : 16:51:42
You know... Back when I was still on the WotC boards, there was a guy who kept starting "Orcus rules!" threads every couple of months. I'm betting he's loving the idea of a planet named Orcus. |
| Bakra |
Posted - 17 Aug 2006 : 15:22:08
*Detective Frank Drebin voice*
I knew it!
|
| Kalin Agrivar |
Posted - 17 Aug 2006 : 15:14:36
I don't know...I think Orcus is more of a respectable name than Xena   |
| Chosen of Moradin |
Posted - 17 Aug 2006 : 15:05:35
Orcus in Spelljammer!!! |
| Mace Hammerhand |
Posted - 17 Aug 2006 : 14:11:30
We now can send someone to Orcus!
I wonder if the guy who named the planet(oid?) had too much BoVD to read while he was in the bathroom, it might have been inspirational... |
