Most of this is being talked about in the 'new planet' thread but either way, here's the NASA site with the details:
http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/Media/releases/ssc2004-05/
LISTEN YOU GUYS
This is no 10th awakening planet! i should have known the news wouldnt release such important data, its just a Ice planet, maybe a 3rd the size of pluto!
They're still disputing (for some reason) whether it should be a planet or not, but how the heck does its size make it any less significant??
quote:
They're still disputing (for some reason) whether it should be a planet or not, but how the heck does its size make it any less significant??
Size matters because there are countless bodies orbiting our Sun. To have no minimum size for it to be considered a planet would mean there would be billions of planets.
Now you've handed us more semantics, which is great, but who cares?
I'd like to know where on the planet somebody wrote the words "There's ice here so it's not significant. Go back home."
His answer may be semantics, but it is the answer to your question nonetheless. I don't understand why this is such a point of contention for you.
Now let's not go crazy here. Nobody's getting hurt, it's just a harmless little question.
Let's look at what just happened: Kerrblur claimed 'this is not the tenth awakening planet', and sort of left things in the air like it's true because it was typed. I asked 'why', no_leaf_clover blurted 'planets are big' and Colin declared 'your question is answered'.
So, that aside, it still stands whether this is the pla.... body is what we've been talking about. Since rambling on a message board has proven fruitless, I guess the rest of us will just have to wait for any further announcements.
Theres one thing I got to say about this topic, and how people (wow!) found this dusted up planet hovering around our solar system. See if our people, And I'm saying the whole world, would stop trying to figure out HOW the universe started, and big bang this goolash, and went on to more simplier things, like finding a rusted up planet out in the middle of nowhere. We'd actually be getting somewhere.
I... don't think it'll help our understanding of the universe by trying so hard not to think about its origin. If everyone interrupted their thoughts to suit your ideas, we'd be blasting hundreds of rockets blindly into space before thinking, "wait, why the hell are we doing this?"
So far we've had more luck by looking before we leap.
There are billions of planetoids orbitting our sun, those which are known as simply planets are of significant size except for perhaps Pluto - and have a more circular orbit rather than asteroids which have more elliptical orbiots, now Pluto is one of the largest small planetoids out there and has an orbit that is more elliptical rather than circular which is why Pluto by many (and me) is considered an Asteroid/kuiper belt object rather than a planet.
IMHO any planetoid that orbits the sun in a more planet like fashion (circular orbit) and has its 'own' orbit should be considered a planet, if the orbit is significantly elliptical like Plutos then it should be considered an asteroid. However I believe size does also matter, so for point of reference I believe anything significantly smaller than Mercury should not be consider a planet.
At the end of the day however they are ALL planetoids.
I would agree and Heph, and
quote:
Now you've handed us more semantics, which is great, but who cares?
is a load of bull. You're coming off strongly as simply wanting to bash someone's ideas rather than discuss something reasonably. Look up the word semantics. It has nothing to do with language; it is all based in practically organizing celestial objects. As I have said, and Heph said as well, there are a countless number of objects floating in space that we know of. To have no size minimum for a body to be considered a planet would be to have a countless number of planets (planets being bodies that orbit the Sun).
If you're wondering if this planet is Nibiru, Zareste, then you can look it up yourself. Nibiru is supposed to be much bigger, and it's also supposed to have a orbit that stretches way beyond Pluto and cuts inward beyond Jupiter.
Anyway none of this is helping at all. Whatever Clover just blurted is probably not worth reading, and it seems this topic ran dry only a few posts after it began.
It was a little fun, I guess, but I can't keep coming back here just to read strings of bickering and off-subject word games. If the subject at hand confuses you then at least say so or don't add anything, otherwise it wastes space. So meanwhile, I'm going to hang out in the other threads and look around on Google for anyone who might have something to say.
Still, Hephaestus' post was certainly useful. I'm glad I read it.
Zareste, I can already tell you have a grudge against me and though I don't care exceptionally, I still hope you will get over it.
If I am having such a difficult time shedding light on a subject that you won't even mention (I have been assuming that it was at first whether or not Nibiru was this newly discovered body and then later why size matters when it comes to celestial objects), then maybe you should tell me what it is that you are asking about!
I don't suppose you can do much more than poke fun at and criticize those of us here who know at least a little about what they're talking about?
Tune in CNN tonight sometime because they will be talking about the 10th planet made of ICE.