Our solar system has how many planets again???

If there were grandfather clauses in the science realms, then we would all still be staring at a religious dogma painted glass celestial sphere within a geocentric universe... forever.

New evidence will always lead to reclassification and rereclassificaton. You can't hope to make a 100% unchangable diagnosis of the patient from random glimpses through telescopes from over a few billion miles away. Even the Hubble has only been able to take iffy pics.
 
I just don't think it's right.:hmm:
If they want to add some/one.., after Pluto, fine, but making one of Jupiter's
"MOONS" a planet is stupid.

Sounds like some people just trying to make a name for themselves.
 
I just looked at the pic in unc's link.
I just heard about the moon inclusion on foxnews.
They want to change the definition of what a planet is.:confused:
 
From Mr b's post "There still is no universal definition of "planet." "

The keyword being 'universal". There has been a definition for planets all my
life, as far as I'm concerned, and it makes since.
 
Ceres is not one of Jupiter's moons, cat. It's the largest asteroid. Bode's Law holds that there should be a planet where the asteroid belt is. Two 19th century theories say that a) there was a planet in the early solar system that exploded or was pulled apart due to it's proximity to Jupiter and it's gravity or b) that a planet never formed there for basically the same reason and the asteroid belt is the detritus of what would have been that planet. There is however, some question about either since there doesn't appear to be nearly enough mass in the asteroid belt to form a planet. :shrug:
 
Yeah, but George Washington had a definition of what a "man" was too. Doesn't hold much water today, what with lawyers and such. You know how nit-picky people are. They need a 'legalese' definition, with no loopholes.
 
chcr said:
Ceres is not one of Jupiter's moons, cat. It's the largest asteroid. Bode's Law holds that there should be a planet where the asteroid belt is. Two 19th century theories say that a) there was a planet in the early solar system that exploded or was pulled apart due to it's proximity to Jupiter and it's gravity or b) that a planet never formed there for basically the same reason and the asteroid belt is the detritus of what would have been that planet. There is however, some question about either since there doesn't appear to be nearly enough mass in the asteroid belt to form a planet. :shrug:
Click to expand...


That's been answered. Jupiter. It pulls and pushes on the belt every time it passes and knocks material out. Same reason Mars isn't as big as it should be.
 
I know that Prof. I actually agree with that hypothesis. There is still a question of whether there ever was enough mass. It's why Bode's law is still questioned by some even though they used it to find Neptune and Uranus (not your anus ;) ). The explanation is feasible, but not testable (at least I don't want to test it) but there is only about .001% of the mass of the earth out there and even given a huge explosion there is some question whether or not there should be more. :shrug:
 
chcr said:
Ceres is not one of Jupiter's moons, cat. It's the largest asteroid. Bode's Law holds that there should be a planet where the asteroid belt is. Two 19th century theories say that a) there was a planet in the early solar system that exploded or was pulled apart due to it's proximity to Jupiter and it's gravity or b) that a planet never formed there for basically the same reason and the asteroid belt is the detritus of what would have been that planet. There is however, some question about either since there doesn't appear to be nearly enough mass in the asteroid belt to form a planet. :shrug:
Click to expand...
I didn't know if it was a moon or not, but they were talking about calling one
of the moons a planet there. ;)
 
Neil Degrasse Jr. says that if Pluto were closer to the sun it would have a tail and rocks with tails are called comets.
 
chcr said:
I know that Prof. I actually agree with that hypothesis. There is still a question of whether there ever was enough mass. It's why Bode's law is still questioned by some even though they used it to find Neptune and Uranus (not your anus ;) ). The explanation is feasible, but not testable (at least I don't want to test it) but there is only about .001% of the mass of the earth out there and even given a huge explosion there is some question whether or not there should be more. :shrug:
Click to expand...


It's theorized that a mass about the size of mars slammed into the primordial Earth, blowing off a chunk that became our moon. It came from somewhere. My money's on the asteroid belt's missing mass.
 
What's it matter? God created the Earth, the sun, the moon and the stars. No mention of planets. They don't exist. Look it up. :lloyd:
 
rrfield said:
What's it matter? God created the Earth, the sun, the moon and the stars. No mention of planets. They don't exist. Look it up. :lloyd:
Click to expand...
Plus the Earth is flat and the heavens immutable.
Professur said:
It's theorized that a mass about the size of mars slammed into the primordial Earth, blowing off a chunk that became our moon. It came from somewhere. My money's on the asteroid belt's missing mass.
Click to expand...
It's also been proved that part of Mars slammed into the Earth. The early solar system was quite a pinball machine. :D
 
chcr said:
Already call Pluto one. Why not others?
Click to expand...
To me, the way I understand it, and according to what I was taught in school....
One of the specifications of a planet is that it's basically round/circular.
An asteroid usually isn't round I don't think.:confused:
Now another rule 'could' apply, that the 'planet' has a standard orbital pattern, but
I think just about everything out there has a pattern.:shrug:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top