RUS New site

Advanced search

[ New messages · Forum rules · Members ]
Page 5 of 15«12345671415»
Forum » SpaceEngine » Science and Astronomy Discussions » Defining Planethood (What sets planets apart?)
Defining Planethood
AlekDate: Saturday, 12.12.2015, 20:37 | Message # 61
Pioneer
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 322
Status: Online
And I don't get answered...It pertains to this thread, you know...




Living among the stars, I find my way. I grow in strength through knowledge of the space I occupy, until I become the ruler of my own interstellar empire of sorts. Though The world was made for the day, I was made for the night, and thus, the universe itself is within my destiny.
 
HarbingerDawnDate: Saturday, 12.12.2015, 20:38 | Message # 62
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8714
Status: Offline
Quote steeljaw354 ()
Saying my opinion in a thread is considered trolling or stupid?

No, it's that you keep getting asked the same legitimate questions and keep giving the same non-answers and keep disregarding science on a science forum. No one possessing both intelligence and sincerity does that. And that is why I have become exasperated.

You have expressed your opinion, and that's fine, but unless you're willing to back up with science why anyone else should share your opinion then continuing to post it constitutes a waste of others' time.





All forum users, please read this!
My SE mods and addons
Phenom II X6 1090T 3.2 GHz, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, GTX 970 3584 MB VRAM
 
HarbingerDawnDate: Saturday, 12.12.2015, 20:40 | Message # 63
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8714
Status: Offline
Alek, sorry, I didn't see your post. Yes, you can go ahead and make a thread on planet classification if one does not exist.




All forum users, please read this!
My SE mods and addons
Phenom II X6 1090T 3.2 GHz, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, GTX 970 3584 MB VRAM
 
steeljaw354Date: Saturday, 12.12.2015, 20:43 | Message # 64
World Builder
Group: Users
Pirate
Messages: 862
Status: Offline
My evidence is here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvkauNOfKL4 the problem is that you need to open your mind a little bit.

Edited by steeljaw354 - Saturday, 12.12.2015, 20:44
 
HarbingerDawnDate: Saturday, 12.12.2015, 20:49 | Message # 65
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8714
Status: Offline
Alan Stern's opinion does not constitute evidence, and by his definition objects other than Pluto and Eris would have to be added to the list of planets. He also proposes that there be multiple types of "planets" - satellite planets, unterplanets, and uberplanets - and that all should be considered proper "planets". I have never seen any reasoning that supports this classification system over others. And you should not expect that someone will have time to watch a 45 minute video to find those few bits, so if you want to continue discussing this, please explain exactly what "evidence" he presents to support Pluto and Eris - but not Sedna, Ceres, Titan, or others - being called proper planets.




All forum users, please read this!
My SE mods and addons
Phenom II X6 1090T 3.2 GHz, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, GTX 970 3584 MB VRAM
 
steeljaw354Date: Saturday, 12.12.2015, 20:54 | Message # 66
World Builder
Group: Users
Pirate
Messages: 862
Status: Offline
If you put an earth for every planet Mercury through pluto and when you put the earth in pluto's orbit it wouldn't be a planet, Same objects classified differently by location, Think about that. I have said all I could say but to those who are ignornant say i'm stupid when I have provided evidence. If you Really want evidence watch the video when you have time. I just classify pluto and eris as primary planets and all the rest as secondary, the ones we don't know much about.

Edited by steeljaw354 - Saturday, 12.12.2015, 20:55
 
HarbingerDawnDate: Saturday, 12.12.2015, 20:57 | Message # 67
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8714
Status: Offline
Nobody is saying that planets should be classified by location. We have pointed out that what matters is gravitational dominance, and physical and orbital characteristics.

But even if we were saying they should be classified by location, this is more than what you propose, which is that they should be classified solely according to your own personal feelings and opinions. That is not science.





All forum users, please read this!
My SE mods and addons
Phenom II X6 1090T 3.2 GHz, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, GTX 970 3584 MB VRAM
 
steeljaw354Date: Saturday, 12.12.2015, 21:03 | Message # 68
World Builder
Group: Users
Pirate
Messages: 862
Status: Offline
Whatever, Go by what You say not by what others say, I don't care if you belive me or not, Afterall I'm not saying they should be classified by MY ways, I'm saying they should be classified by the individual's preference (Individual as in anybody)
 
FaceDeerDate: Saturday, 12.12.2015, 21:33 | Message # 69
Space Pilot
Group: Users
Canada
Messages: 117
Status: Offline
Quote steeljaw354 ()
If you put an earth for every planet Mercury through pluto and when you put the earth in pluto's orbit it wouldn't be a planet


Earth in Pluto's orbit would be a planet according to both Stern-Levison and Soter's methods.

Earth-in-Pluto's-orbit has a Stern-Levison parameter of about 0.004 times its current value, whereas Mars has a Stern-Levison parameter 0.006 times Earth's.

Earth-in-Pluto's-orbit has a Soter planetary discriminant of 6.8 * 10^4, which actually beats out both Uranus and Neptune (they have planetary discriminants of 2.9 and 2.4 *10^4 respectively).

I think the problem you might be having here is that humans aren't really good at intuitively grasping relative sizes of things of this magnitude. It's not something that you can intuitively juggle the numbers for. You have to actually work them out to see. Pluto is small and low-density compared to Earth and the scale of its orbit is quite vast.

It always amuses and frustrates me when Alan Stern's current opinion is brought up in discussions of planethood, since he co-invented the Stern-Levison parameter that objectively counters many of the things he now says about what objects have and have not 'cleared' their orbits. If he really thinks his original paper was wrong I think he should publish a new paper explaining why it's wrong. Trying to make his case with rhetoric in the mass media doesn't really measure up.


Edited by FaceDeer - Saturday, 12.12.2015, 21:44
 
WatsisnameDate: Saturday, 12.12.2015, 23:35 | Message # 70
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
United States
Messages: 2611
Status: Offline
Quote steeljaw354 ()
Same objects classified differently by location, Think about that.


The degree to which the object dominates the dynamics of its neighborhood is important.

I really do not know how to express this idea any more simply than that. It is a concept that has been explained throughout this thread (Facedeer in particular has done an exemplary job with this), with links to academic sources, simple demonstrations of its effectiveness, and insight as to why this particular metric for defining planethood arises naturally from physical principles, rather than being set arbitrarily or by biased choices.





 
steeljaw354Date: Saturday, 12.12.2015, 23:37 | Message # 71
World Builder
Group: Users
Pirate
Messages: 862
Status: Offline
I'm not even going to present more facts because of the ignorance. If you feel that I am wasting your time while I present facts so be it.

Edited by steeljaw354 - Saturday, 12.12.2015, 23:44
 
HarbingerDawnDate: Saturday, 12.12.2015, 23:44 | Message # 72
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8714
Status: Offline
Quote steeljaw354 ()
I'm not even going to present more facts because of the ignorance.






All forum users, please read this!
My SE mods and addons
Phenom II X6 1090T 3.2 GHz, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, GTX 970 3584 MB VRAM
 
WatsisnameDate: Sunday, 13.12.2015, 01:28 | Message # 73
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
United States
Messages: 2611
Status: Offline
steeljaw354, it is okay to have an opinion on what you do or do not want to call a planet. It is okay to share your idea, too. That is why this thread exists! However, you should understand what that process will involve, within a scientifically-oriented community such as this. You can expect to see a review of your idea to determine how well it works as classification system. You can expect it to involve some level of academic critique. You are expected to be able to engage with that critique.

You can see this process in action during the first two pages, where HarbingerDawn and myself tried to work through our differing views of defining planethood. I think we both got a lot out of it. It certainly helped me develop my own thinking on the topic. And we were able to understand and respect one another through that process, too.

Remember, (and this goes for everyone), the goal here is not to offend anyone or to put their ideas down. The goal is for people involved to exchange ideas and to learn, even if they do not always hold the same views. Especially if they do not hold the same views. This is what makes for a healthy community.





 
steeljaw354Date: Sunday, 13.12.2015, 19:47 | Message # 74
World Builder
Group: Users
Pirate
Messages: 862
Status: Offline
Whats your defintion of a planet?
 
Wicker1MDate: Sunday, 13.12.2015, 20:31 | Message # 75
Astronaut
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 55
Status: Offline
Some objects greater than 13 Jupiter masses are considered as planets. Why is that?
 
Forum » SpaceEngine » Science and Astronomy Discussions » Defining Planethood (What sets planets apart?)
Page 5 of 15«12345671415»
Search: