quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Well, I hate to burst your theory but every existing object exhibits that funny property of gravitationally attracting other objects and holding itself together because of gravity, so you'll have to come up with a better solution than this one

I agree with Drug Tito. Planets aren't considered planets by size. Planets only orbit around a star. Moons orbit around a planet. Simple. As far as asteroids. The Asteroid field, when I last read something on it, was believed to be pieces of a former planet, or planets. A debate comes when talking about Jupiter's moons because Jupiter is believed by some to be a fromer star or a mass, that if ignited, coul become a star.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Well, I hate to burst your theory but every existing object exhibits that funny property of gravitationally attracting other objects and holding itself together because of gravity, so you'll have to come up with a better solution than this one

Well no shit, but you're average asteroid is usually one whole chunk of rock. It may attract nearby tiny pieces but thats about it. A whole planet is much different. Just look at Earth, with its iron core, mantle, crust (complete with plates) mountains, large rocks, whatever. It's definately not one big chunk of rock. If you suddenly broke the largest asteroid you could find into smaller pieces their gravity would be too weak to pull each other back together. Even if you break just one piece off that asteroid it's probably going to fly off.

I'm saying

___________________
NEW MIX [Feb/March 2008]

quote:

Originally posted by Ondrayce I agree with Drug Tito. Planets aren't considered planets by size. Planets only orbit around a star. Moons orbit around a planet. Simple. As far as asteroids. The Asteroid field, when I last read something on it, was believed to be pieces of a former planet, or planets. A debate comes when talking about Jupiter's moons because Jupiter is believed by some to be a fromer star or a mass, that if ignited, coul become a star.

The asteroid field has nowhere near enough mass to become a planet. Jupiter should be at least 15 or so times larger than it is now if it were to have any chance of becoming a star.

quote:

Originally posted by nrjizer Well no shit, but you're average asteroid is usually one whole chunk of rock. It may attract nearby tiny pieces but thats about it. A whole planet is much different. Just look at Earth, with its iron core, mantle, crust (complete with plates) mountains, large rocks, whatever. It's definately not one big chunk of rock. If you suddenly broke the largest asteroid you could find into smaller pieces their gravity would be too weak to pull each other back together. Even if you break just one piece off that asteroid it's probably going to fly off. I'm saying

It all depends on the foce with which you break the chunk off. Every body in the solar system has its escape velocity. The velocity is much smaller for asteroids than it is for planets, but it exists nevertheless. Besides, some planets like Mercury don't have tectonic plates or a mantle and crust.

___________________
1+1=10

Good article on the controversy behind defining the term "planet" here:

http://www.space.com/scienceastrono...ons_030227.html

I like this suggestion:

quote:

He proposes that the murky lower limit for planet-hood get set at a diameter of about 435 miles (700 kilometers). That's roughly the bulk needed to allow gravity to shape an object into a sphere, depending on density. Smaller objects -- both asteroids and comets -- tend to look like potatoes or bell peppers.

It would mean, though, that this new planetoid and a few other large bodies in the solar system would need to be reclassified as planets.

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

quote:

Originally posted by nrjizer IMHO if it's large enough to have gravity which binds it together, and it's orbiting the Sun, then just call it a planet. If it's too small for gravity, then its an asteroid (which is 1 big chunk of rock as opposed to many smaller ones held together by gravity). If it circles a planet instead of the Sun (or any star), call it a moon.

I'm getting fed up with stupid posts like this. No one is interested in why your self devised beliefs and definitions trump the established scientific community.

Here i looked up the definition for you. A planetoid is more or less a size classfication: planet (the largest), planetoid (medium), and asteroid (small). Obviously since its a man made classification system, arbitrary dimensions must be used.

So if you want to ask what's the definition of a planet/astroid is fine, but don't be an idiot and argue why you make more sense than scientist who dedicate their lives to this sort of subject.

___________________
GIGANTIC CUNT

Last edited by igottaknow on Mar-16-2004 at 15:24

As I clearly stated, thats just my opinion. And as far as I know, many of these scientists who dedicate their lives to the subject are still trying to define some sort of clear distinction between planets and planetoids (even pluto is not considered a real planet by many scientists).

quote:

It all depends on the foce with which you break the chunk off. Every body in the solar system has its escape velocity. The velocity is much smaller for asteroids than it is for planets, but it exists nevertheless. Besides, some planets like Mercury don't have tectonic plates or a mantle and crust.

This is very true, but even Mercury is a "complex" body, complete with an iron core, mantle and crust. Mariner has also found evidence of ancient volcanism. My random idea was to just classify anything orbiting the sun with a) enough gravity to sustain itself (if its a complex body like Mercury, Earth, Jupiter, etc), and/or b) an atmosphere of some kind. But whatever, it's not even important, just some crazy random idea. I'm sure theres nothing wrong with current classification guidelines.

___________________
NEW MIX [Feb/March 2008]

quote:

Originally posted by nrjizer This is very true, but even Mercury is a "complex" body, complete with an iron core, mantle and crust. Mariner has also found evidence of ancient volcanism. My random idea was to just classify anything orbiting the sun with a) enough gravity to sustain itself (if its a complex body like Mercury, Earth, Jupiter, etc), and/or b) an atmosphere of some kind. But whatever, it's not even important, just some crazy random idea. I'm sure theres nothing wrong with current classification guidelines.

Again, every body in the solar system has enough gravity to sustain itself. Now, the idea about having a layered interior and an atmosphere is not a bad one. I guess you could say that such bodies are planets. But that's not far from the proposed definition which Renegade posted, which would mean a soon increase in the number of planets, as it would follow that Pluto, Quouar, and Sedna are all planets, not to mention yet all the undiscovered planetoids.

___________________
1+1=10