Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
How Many Planets Are There in the Solar System?
52 views
Skip to first unread message
The Starmaker
Apr 10, 2012, 1:32:09 AM4/10/12
to
Don't answer the qustion..
How Many Planets Are There in the Solar System?
Because no matter what answer you give, you're going to be wrong.
So, don't embarrasss yourself...don't try to answer it.
And if a 3 year old askes you
"How Many Planets Are There in the Solar System?"
any answer you give him will be a lie.
You might find somebody who will tell you how many Super-Earths are in the universe..
but they won't be able to tell you...How Many Planets Are There in our own Solar System?
Is there one person on this planet that can answer the question:
How Many Planets Are There in the Solar System?
Any kids out there going to school tomorrow, I want you to ask your teacher this question:
How Many Planets Are There in the Solar System?
The Starmaker
How Many Planets Are There in the Solar System?
Because no matter what answer you give, you're going to be wrong.
So, don't embarrasss yourself...don't try to answer it.
And if a 3 year old askes you
"How Many Planets Are There in the Solar System?"
any answer you give him will be a lie.
You might find somebody who will tell you how many Super-Earths are in the universe..
but they won't be able to tell you...How Many Planets Are There in our own Solar System?
Is there one person on this planet that can answer the question:
How Many Planets Are There in the Solar System?
Any kids out there going to school tomorrow, I want you to ask your teacher this question:
How Many Planets Are There in the Solar System?
The Starmaker
alie...@gmail.com
Apr 10, 2012, 3:35:55 AM4/10/12
to
On Apr 9, 10:32 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Don't answer the qustion..
> How Many Planets Are There in the Solar System?
What exactly is a "planet"?
> Don't answer the qustion..
> How Many Planets Are There in the Solar System?
Is Eris a planet? It orbits the sun, it's bigger than Pluto and even
has its own moon, Dysnomia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eris_%28dwarf_planet%29
Mark L. Fergerson
Professor Bubba
Apr 10, 2012, 8:36:38 AM4/10/12
to
In article <4F83C5...@ix.netcom.com>, The Starmaker
Well, there's at least two: ours, and the one you're from.
Well, there's at least two: ours, and the one you're from.
cloud dreamer
Apr 10, 2012, 8:41:47 AM4/10/12
to
;]
--
We must change the way we live
Or the climate will do it for us
T Guy
Apr 10, 2012, 8:38:48 AM4/10/12
to
system which I'm in.
Any kids out there going to school tomorrow, I want you to ask your
teacher this question:
anim8rFSK
Apr 10, 2012, 9:26:44 AM4/10/12
to
In article
<70bf8719-8e4f-4fbf...@z38g2000vbu.googlegroups.com>,
Neil deGrasse Tyson in his miniature genitals 9 times.
--
So we're all agreed that Clod is stupid?
<70bf8719-8e4f-4fbf...@z38g2000vbu.googlegroups.com>,
T Guy <Tim.B...@redbridge.gov.uk> wrote:
> On Apr 10, 6:32 am, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > Don't answer the qustion..
> > How Many Planets Are There in the Solar System?
> >
> > Because no matter what answer you give, you're going to be wrong.
> >
> > So, don't embarrasss yourself...don't try to answer it.
> >
> > And if a 3 year old askes you
> >
> > "How Many Planets Are There in the Solar System?"
> >
> > any answer you give him will be a lie.
> >
> > You might find somebody who will tell you how many Super-Earths are in the
> > universe..
> > but they won't be able to tell you...How Many Planets Are There in our own
> > Solar System?
> >
> > Is there one person on this planet that can answer the question:
> > How Many Planets Are There in the Solar System?
> >
> > Any kids out there going to school tomorrow, I want you to ask your teacher
> > this question:
> > How Many Planets Are There in the Solar System?
>
> There are eight planets in the Solar System. At least in the solar
> system which I'm in.
If someone has a magnifying glass and tweezers, I'd be happy to kick
> On Apr 10, 6:32 am, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > Don't answer the qustion..
> > How Many Planets Are There in the Solar System?
> >
> > Because no matter what answer you give, you're going to be wrong.
> >
> > So, don't embarrasss yourself...don't try to answer it.
> >
> > And if a 3 year old askes you
> >
> > "How Many Planets Are There in the Solar System?"
> >
> > any answer you give him will be a lie.
> >
> > You might find somebody who will tell you how many Super-Earths are in the
> > universe..
> > but they won't be able to tell you...How Many Planets Are There in our own
> > Solar System?
> >
> > Is there one person on this planet that can answer the question:
> > How Many Planets Are There in the Solar System?
> >
> > Any kids out there going to school tomorrow, I want you to ask your teacher
> > this question:
> > How Many Planets Are There in the Solar System?
>
> There are eight planets in the Solar System. At least in the solar
> system which I'm in.
Neil deGrasse Tyson in his miniature genitals 9 times.
--
So we're all agreed that Clod is stupid?
Mason Barge
Apr 10, 2012, 10:24:16 AM4/10/12
to
Jim T.
Apr 10, 2012, 11:33:17 AM4/10/12
to
the predicted dozens or more such objects yet to be discovered in the
outer Solar System?
number6
Apr 10, 2012, 12:09:25 PM4/10/12
to
On Apr 10, 11:33 am, Jim T. <x...@y.z> wrote:
Like many rules ... Pluto should have been grandfathered into keeping
its planet designation ...
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 06:26:44 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim8r...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
> If you want to keep Pluto, are you then willing to accept as planets
> the predicted dozens or more such objects yet to be discovered in the
> outer Solar System?-
> wrote:
>
> If you want to keep Pluto, are you then willing to accept as planets
> the predicted dozens or more such objects yet to be discovered in the
Like many rules ... Pluto should have been grandfathered into keeping
its planet designation ...
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Apr 10, 2012, 12:12:30 PM4/10/12
to
puling weak-willed astronomic community couldn't handle a few dozen
planets? For that they sacrificed noble Pluto, exiling her from her
rightful status? Cowards, I tell you! Cowards! I say to define as a
planet anything that has an escape velocity higher than that achievable
with a good ramp and a high-performance racecar, and let the names fall
where they may!
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Bill Steele
Apr 10, 2012, 12:58:02 PM4/10/12
to
How many "planets"are there in the solar system?
--
Conservatives believe that government should not help people do
anything. To ratiionally holdjthat position they must believe that they
are superior beings who will rise to the top in such a system. So
apparently most conservatives are egoists and many are too dumb to
understand how dumb they are.
Wayne Throop
Apr 10, 2012, 1:19:38 PM4/10/12
to
: The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
: Don't answer the qustion..
reasonable, truthful, and perfectly cromulent answer to the question.
: Is there one person on this planet that can answer the question:
the formal definition of "planet" (and add "known" so that the question
is is sensible) and knows a bit about what's been observed in the solar
system so far can answer the question.
: Don't answer the qustion..
: How Many Planets Are There in the Solar System?
: Because no matter what answer you give, you're going to be wrong.
Just because you want to pick nits doesn't mean there isn't a
: Because no matter what answer you give, you're going to be wrong.
reasonable, truthful, and perfectly cromulent answer to the question.
: Is there one person on this planet that can answer the question:
: How Many Planets Are There in the Solar System?
Oh no. There are many more than one. Anybody who can read
the formal definition of "planet" (and add "known" so that the question
is is sensible) and knows a bit about what's been observed in the solar
system so far can answer the question.
Evelyn Leeper
Apr 10, 2012, 1:29:29 PM4/10/12
to
On 4/10/12 11:33 AM, Jim T. wrote:
--
Evelyn C. Leeper
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home,
but unlike charity, it should end there. -Clare Boothe Luce
Wayne Throop
Apr 10, 2012, 1:30:11 PM4/10/12
to
:: If you want to keep Pluto, are you then willing to accept as planets
: Sure.
But why would anybody *want* to keep Pluto? What reasonable motive is
there, really? And should we promote, say, Ceres?
:: the predicted dozens or more such objects yet to be discovered in the
:: outer Solar System?
: Evelyn Leeper <ele...@optonline.net>
:: outer Solar System?
: Sure.
But why would anybody *want* to keep Pluto? What reasonable motive is
there, really? And should we promote, say, Ceres?
tphile2
Apr 10, 2012, 1:28:02 PM4/10/12
to
On Apr 10, 11:58 am, Bill Steele <w...@cornell.edu> wrote:
> On 4/10/12 12:12 PM, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 4/10/12 11:33 AM, Jim T. wrote:
> >> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 06:26:44 -0700, anim8rFSK<anim8r...@cox.net>
> On 4/10/12 12:12 PM, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 4/10/12 11:33 AM, Jim T. wrote:
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> In article
> >>> <70bf8719-8e4f-4fbf-8efc-56db034db...@z38g2000vbu.googlegroups.com>,
and what about the Counter Earth in orbit around the far side of the
sun?
DCs Infinite Earths in their own dimension or alternate reality?
and wasn't the asteroid belt once a planet according to some stories?
Does Middle Earth count?
Planet Hollywood and The Daily Planet?
I suppose there are others
Jim T.
Apr 10, 2012, 1:36:38 PM4/10/12
to
cloud dreamer
Apr 10, 2012, 1:39:00 PM4/10/12
to
information available at the time. With technological advances and the
discovery that it's just one of many minor planets out there, they had
to pin down the definition. Pluto didn't fit. Simple.
It's like saying "well, we used to treat this or that disease by
bleeding the person. Just because we know that anti-biotics work today,
we should still bleed them cause that's the way it's always been."
D'oh!
..
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Apr 10, 2012, 1:39:05 PM4/10/12
to
In article <4f846df9$0$24701$607e...@cv.net>,
I want to keep Pluto for the same reason we keep Europe & Asia.
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
be...@iwaynet.net
Apr 10, 2012, 1:44:24 PM4/10/12
to
knows it all? I guess he's too busy with his new profession: Climate
Science Propagandist.
Personally I think this is so sad that science in general and physics in
particular has degenerated to nothing but a bunch of semantic word
games. Next you'll all arguing what the meaning of "is" is. It's already
happened here.
jonathan
Apr 10, 2012, 2:49:35 PM4/10/12
to
"Wayne Throop" <thr...@sheol.org> wrote in message
news:13340...@sheol.org...
s
Bill Snyder
Apr 10, 2012, 5:00:15 PM4/10/12
to
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 17:30:11 GMT, thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
wrote:
>:: If you want to keep Pluto, are you then willing to accept as planets
>:: the predicted dozens or more such objects yet to be discovered in the
>:: outer Solar System?
>
>: Evelyn Leeper <ele...@optonline.net>
>: Sure.
>
>But why would anybody *want* to keep Pluto?
Ask Mickey.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
wrote:
>:: If you want to keep Pluto, are you then willing to accept as planets
>:: the predicted dozens or more such objects yet to be discovered in the
>:: outer Solar System?
>
>: Evelyn Leeper <ele...@optonline.net>
>: Sure.
>
>But why would anybody *want* to keep Pluto?
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
The Starmaker
Apr 10, 2012, 5:34:47 PM4/10/12
to
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Apr 10, 2012, 7:19:41 PM4/10/12
to
On 4/10/12 5:00 PM, Bill Snyder wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 17:30:11 GMT, thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
> wrote:
>
>> :: If you want to keep Pluto, are you then willing to accept as planets
>> :: the predicted dozens or more such objects yet to be discovered in the
>> :: outer Solar System?
>>
>> : Evelyn Leeper<ele...@optonline.net>
>> : Sure.
>>
>> But why would anybody *want* to keep Pluto?
>
> Ask Mickey.
I was thinking more of asking the other Sailor Senshi, and the answer
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 17:30:11 GMT, thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
> wrote:
>
>> :: If you want to keep Pluto, are you then willing to accept as planets
>> :: the predicted dozens or more such objects yet to be discovered in the
>> :: outer Solar System?
>>
>> : Evelyn Leeper<ele...@optonline.net>
>> : Sure.
>>
>> But why would anybody *want* to keep Pluto?
>
> Ask Mickey.
is "because if you don't, she'll kill you all".
Wayne Throop
Apr 10, 2012, 7:45:51 PM4/10/12
to
: The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
: Translation: Wayne Throop has no idea How Many Planets There Are in
: our Solar System.
You don't really translate very well.
If you mean, definitively and including all future discoveries,
then nobody does. In fact, nobody knows much of anything by that
ridiculous standard. If you mean, how many have been discovered
so far, then eight.
: Translation: Wayne Throop has no idea How Many Planets There Are in
: our Solar System.
You don't really translate very well.
If you mean, definitively and including all future discoveries,
then nobody does. In fact, nobody knows much of anything by that
ridiculous standard. If you mean, how many have been discovered
so far, then eight.
David DeLaney
Apr 10, 2012, 8:08:45 PM4/10/12
to
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
tphile2
Apr 10, 2012, 10:04:30 PM4/10/12
to
On Apr 10, 6:19 pm, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
> > On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 17:30:11 GMT, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
> > On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 17:30:11 GMT, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
> > wrote:
>
> >> :: If you want to keep Pluto, are you then willing to accept as planets
> >> :: the predicted dozens or more such objects yet to be discovered in the
> >> :: outer Solar System?
>
> >> : Evelyn Leeper<elee...@optonline.net>
>
> >> :: If you want to keep Pluto, are you then willing to accept as planets
> >> :: the predicted dozens or more such objects yet to be discovered in the
> >> :: outer Solar System?
>
> >> : Sure.
>
> >> But why would anybody *want* to keep Pluto?
>
> > Ask Mickey.
>
> I was thinking more of asking the other Sailor Senshi, and the answer
> is "because if you don't, she'll kill you all".
>
>
>
> --
> Sea Wasp
> /^\
> ;;;
> Website:http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:http://seawasp.livejournal.com
What did you expect? Pluto is a dog.
>
> >> But why would anybody *want* to keep Pluto?
>
> > Ask Mickey.
>
> I was thinking more of asking the other Sailor Senshi, and the answer
> is "because if you don't, she'll kill you all".
>
>
>
> --
> Sea Wasp
> /^\
> ;;;
> Website:http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:http://seawasp.livejournal.com
William December Starr
Apr 10, 2012, 10:24:37 PM4/10/12
to
In article <13340...@sheol.org>,
Neptune Pluto" as a child, that's why!
-- wds (dadgummit)
thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) said:
> But why would anybody *want* to keep Pluto? What reasonable
> motive is there, really?
Because I learned "Mercury Venus Earth Mars Jupiter Saturn Uranus
> But why would anybody *want* to keep Pluto? What reasonable
> motive is there, really?
Neptune Pluto" as a child, that's why!
-- wds (dadgummit)
ala
Apr 10, 2012, 10:54:13 PM4/10/12
to
"jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dYednX6hGLNNHRnS...@giganews.com...
>
>
BCFD36
Apr 11, 2012, 2:30:44 AM4/11/12
to
--
Dave Scruggs
Captain, Boulder Creek Fire
Leif Roar Moldskred
Apr 11, 2012, 3:04:07 AM4/11/12
to
In rec.arts.sf.written The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> How Many Planets Are There in the Solar System?
Five Planets for the Magi-kings under the sky,
> How Many Planets Are There in the Solar System?
Eight for the School-kids in their halls of drones,
Nine for Moldy Men doomed to die,
One for the Drakh Lords on their dark thrones
On the globe of Z'ha'dum where the Shadows lie.
--
Leif Roar Moldskred
Wayne Throop
Apr 11, 2012, 3:37:26 AM4/11/12
to
: BCFD36 <bcf...@cruzio.com>
: Why do you feed the troll?
Trolls gotta eat, same as buzzards and worms.
No wait, that's why it's not strictly necessary to bury corpses.
So, that's very different. Nevermind.
: Why do you feed the troll?
Trolls gotta eat, same as buzzards and worms.
No wait, that's why it's not strictly necessary to bury corpses.
So, that's very different. Nevermind.
anim8rFSK
Apr 11, 2012, 5:04:37 AM4/11/12
to
In article <0ek8o7dajmqd4f404...@4ax.com>, Jim T. <x@y.z>
wrote:
If and when we discover them, sure. Something tossed Lucifer's Hamner
at us.
--
So we're all agreed that Clod is stupid?
wrote:
at us.
--
So we're all agreed that Clod is stupid?
anim8rFSK
Apr 11, 2012, 5:06:03 AM4/11/12
to
In article <ujg8o7d0q3badvhn1...@4ax.com>,
> Why don't you kick him somewhere it would hurt?
Good point.
Good point.
Michael Stemper
Apr 11, 2012, 1:02:01 PM4/11/12
to
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
Twenty-four hours in a day; twenty-four beers in a case. Coincidence?
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Apr 11, 2012, 1:13:51 PM4/11/12
to
In article <jm4de9$7ko$2...@dont-email.me>,
rather intriguing..
Michael Stemper <michael...@gmail.com> wrote:
>In article <9uj9hp...@mid.individual.net>, t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted
>Nolan <tednolan>) writes:
>>In article <4f846df9$0$24701$607e...@cv.net>, Evelyn Leeper
><ele...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>On 4/10/12 11:33 AM, Jim T. wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 06:26:44 -0700, anim8rFSK<anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>>>>>> How Many Planets Are There in the Solar System?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are eight planets in the Solar System. At least in the solar
>>>>>> system which I'm in.
>>>>>
>>>>> If someone has a magnifying glass and tweezers, I'd be happy to kick
>>>>> Neil deGrasse Tyson in his miniature genitals 9 times.
>>>>
>>>> If you want to keep Pluto, are you then willing to accept as planets
>>>> the predicted dozens or more such objects yet to be discovered in the
>>>> outer Solar System?
>>>
>>>Sure.
>>
>>I want to keep Pluto for the same reason we keep Europe & Asia.
>
>For the cuisine?
>
Well, the account of farming on Pluto in _First Lensman_ iirc did sound
>In article <9uj9hp...@mid.individual.net>, t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted
>Nolan <tednolan>) writes:
>>In article <4f846df9$0$24701$607e...@cv.net>, Evelyn Leeper
><ele...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>On 4/10/12 11:33 AM, Jim T. wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 06:26:44 -0700, anim8rFSK<anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>>>>>> How Many Planets Are There in the Solar System?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are eight planets in the Solar System. At least in the solar
>>>>>> system which I'm in.
>>>>>
>>>>> If someone has a magnifying glass and tweezers, I'd be happy to kick
>>>>> Neil deGrasse Tyson in his miniature genitals 9 times.
>>>>
>>>> If you want to keep Pluto, are you then willing to accept as planets
>>>> the predicted dozens or more such objects yet to be discovered in the
>>>> outer Solar System?
>>>
>>>Sure.
>>
>>I want to keep Pluto for the same reason we keep Europe & Asia.
>
>For the cuisine?
>
rather intriguing..
The Starmaker
Apr 11, 2012, 1:18:29 PM4/11/12
to
The Starmaker
Apr 11, 2012, 1:26:58 PM4/11/12
to
Pluto has seasons
it has it's own global warming
it revolves around the sun..
it probably has trees.
Did anybody bothered to look?
They just discovered another
sun with nine planets...
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/04/120410-star-system-more-planets-sun-hd10180-space-science/
did i say "another"?
I'm confused.
Who is creating this...confusion?
The Starmaker
Wayne Throop
Apr 11, 2012, 2:42:53 PM4/11/12
to
:: If you mean, how many have been discovered so far, then eight.
: The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
: I'm confused, is it eight or nine?
You found that simple declarative sentence confusing?
Or more likely, you pretend to for the sake of trollery.
Why am I not surprised?
How many bodies in the solar system have been discovered that orbit the
sun, are roughly spherical due to self-gravitation, and are alone in
their orbit? What's confusing about that? Simple, straightforward,
and the answer is eight.
There are of course corner cases. Arguably, earth should be disqualified
since arguably the moon is actually orbiting the sun (what with its
path being always curved towards the sun), but those arguments are not
convincing, so nobody sensible pays much attention to them.
: The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
: I'm confused, is it eight or nine?
You found that simple declarative sentence confusing?
Or more likely, you pretend to for the sake of trollery.
Why am I not surprised?
How many bodies in the solar system have been discovered that orbit the
sun, are roughly spherical due to self-gravitation, and are alone in
their orbit? What's confusing about that? Simple, straightforward,
and the answer is eight.
There are of course corner cases. Arguably, earth should be disqualified
since arguably the moon is actually orbiting the sun (what with its
path being always curved towards the sun), but those arguments are not
convincing, so nobody sensible pays much attention to them.
Wayne Throop
Apr 11, 2012, 2:56:38 PM4/11/12
to
: The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
: Pluto has it's own moons Pluto has seasons it has it's own global
course, the word "planet" does not now mean, and never has meant, "a
body that has one or more moons, seasons, orbits the sun, and probably
has trees", so in actual fact these are all irrelevant. In addition to
the last one being rather obviously incorrect.
: I'm confused.
Nah you're just retending to be confused.
: Who is creating this...confusion?
Well, you're the one pretending to be confused.
Pretty much nobody else is either confused or pretending to be.
So, pretty much, you're just making it up.
: Pluto has it's own moons Pluto has seasons it has it's own global
: warming it revolves around the sun.. it probably has trees.
Gee you say that almost as if you thought it were relevant. But of
course, the word "planet" does not now mean, and never has meant, "a
body that has one or more moons, seasons, orbits the sun, and probably
has trees", so in actual fact these are all irrelevant. In addition to
the last one being rather obviously incorrect.
: I'm confused.
Nah you're just retending to be confused.
: Who is creating this...confusion?
Well, you're the one pretending to be confused.
Pretty much nobody else is either confused or pretending to be.
So, pretty much, you're just making it up.
cloud dreamer
Apr 11, 2012, 3:22:36 PM4/11/12
to
On 11/04/2012 4:26 PM, Wayne Throop wrote:
> : The Starmaker<star...@ix.netcom.com>
> : Pluto has it's own moons Pluto has seasons it has it's own global
> : warming it revolves around the sun.. it probably has trees.
>
> Gee you say that almost as if you thought it were relevant.
Pluto has its own global warming? Gee, someone should tell NASA.
> : The Starmaker<star...@ix.netcom.com>
> : Pluto has it's own moons Pluto has seasons it has it's own global
> : warming it revolves around the sun.. it probably has trees.
>
> Gee you say that almost as if you thought it were relevant.
Especially given that we have yet to observe Pluto complete a full
orbit. We've only known about it for about 1/3 of its current "year."
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-other-planets-solar-system.htm
The Starmaker
Apr 11, 2012, 3:34:21 PM4/11/12
to
The Starmaker
Apr 11, 2012, 3:38:53 PM4/11/12
to
I'm going to tell him, "These fuckin people don't know anything!"
Wayne Throop
Apr 11, 2012, 3:44:16 PM4/11/12
to
:: How many bodies in the solar system have been discovered that orbit
: It hasn't been...settled whether it's 8 or 9.
It's as settled as settled can be.
You're the one claiming the possibility of nine. Name them.
:: the sun, are roughly spherical due to self-gravitation, and are alone
:: in their orbit? What's confusing about that? Simple,
:: straightforward, and the answer is eight.
: The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
:: in their orbit? What's confusing about that? Simple,
:: straightforward, and the answer is eight.
: It hasn't been...settled whether it's 8 or 9.
It's as settled as settled can be.
You're the one claiming the possibility of nine. Name them.
Wayne Throop
Apr 11, 2012, 3:46:51 PM4/11/12
to
: The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
: If a kid askes me, "How Many Planets Are There in the Solar System?",
Your motive for telling such a whopper is unclear.
But it's probably just trollery.
: If a kid askes me, "How Many Planets Are There in the Solar System?",
: I'm not going to tell him eight. I'm going to tell him, "These fuckin
: people don't know anything!"
In short, you're going to lie to him.
: people don't know anything!"
Your motive for telling such a whopper is unclear.
But it's probably just trollery.
The Starmaker
Apr 11, 2012, 4:48:09 PM4/11/12
to
I don't suscribe to the Idiots Astronomical Union (IAU)
Duggy
Apr 11, 2012, 5:24:11 PM4/11/12
to
On Apr 10, 10:36 pm, Professor Bubba <bu...@nowhere.edu.invalid>
wrote:
> In article <4F83C5D9.5...@ix.netcom.com>, The Starmaker
> Well, there's at least two: ours, and the one you're from.
+1.
===
= DUG.
===
wrote:
> In article <4F83C5D9.5...@ix.netcom.com>, The Starmaker
> Well, there's at least two: ours, and the one you're from.
+1.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
Apr 11, 2012, 5:26:31 PM4/11/12
to
On Apr 11, 2:09 am, number6 <snumb...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Apr 10, 11:33 am, Jim T. <x...@y.z> wrote:
>
> Like many rules ... Pluto should have been grandfathered into keeping
> its planet designation ...
Why? It's just one of many tiny chunks of rock the same orbit. Hell,
even it's own moon is so big they revolve around each other. Why
isn't that a planet?
===
= DUG.
===
> On Apr 10, 11:33 am, Jim T. <x...@y.z> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 06:26:44 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim8r...@cox.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > If you want to keep Pluto, are you then willing to accept as planets
> > the predicted dozens or more such objects yet to be discovered in the
> > outer Solar System?-
> > On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 06:26:44 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim8r...@cox.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > If you want to keep Pluto, are you then willing to accept as planets
> > the predicted dozens or more such objects yet to be discovered in the
>
> Like many rules ... Pluto should have been grandfathered into keeping
> its planet designation ...
Why? It's just one of many tiny chunks of rock the same orbit. Hell,
even it's own moon is so big they revolve around each other. Why
isn't that a planet?
===
= DUG.
===
David Dyer-Bennet
Apr 11, 2012, 6:30:23 PM4/11/12
to
Professor Bubba <bu...@nowhere.edu.invalid> writes:
> In article <4F83C5...@ix.netcom.com>, The Starmaker
somewhere farther away.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
> In article <4F83C5...@ix.netcom.com>, The Starmaker
> <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> "How Many Planets Are There in the Solar System?"
>
> Well, there's at least two: ours, and the one you're from.
Are you sure that one is in the Solar System? I think it might be
>
>> "How Many Planets Are There in the Solar System?"
>
> Well, there's at least two: ours, and the one you're from.
somewhere farther away.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
Bill Snyder
Apr 11, 2012, 6:55:41 PM4/11/12
to
On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 17:30:23 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet
<dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>Professor Bubba <bu...@nowhere.edu.invalid> writes:
>
>> In article <4F83C5...@ix.netcom.com>, The Starmaker
>> <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "How Many Planets Are There in the Solar System?"
>>
>> Well, there's at least two: ours, and the one you're from.
>
>Are you sure that one is in the Solar System? I think it might be
>somewhere farther away.
Bizarro World is very far away indeed.
<dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>Professor Bubba <bu...@nowhere.edu.invalid> writes:
>
>> In article <4F83C5...@ix.netcom.com>, The Starmaker
>> <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "How Many Planets Are There in the Solar System?"
>>
>> Well, there's at least two: ours, and the one you're from.
>
>Are you sure that one is in the Solar System? I think it might be
>somewhere farther away.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
Androcles
Apr 11, 2012, 7:09:31 PM4/11/12
to
news:13341...@sheol.org...
EVERYTHING in the Solar System orbits the Sun, otherwise it
would not belong to the Solar System. Many moons are roughly
spherical due to self-gravitation, including those of the gas giants.
Your argument is unconvincing, you are not sensible, you are
as simple-minded as your definition.
would not belong to the Solar System. Many moons are roughly
spherical due to self-gravitation, including those of the gas giants.
Your argument is unconvincing, you are not sensible, you are
as simple-minded as your definition.
number6
Apr 11, 2012, 8:05:05 PM4/11/12
to
On Apr 11, 5:26 pm, Duggy <p.allan.dug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Like many rules ... Pluto should have been grandfathered into keeping
> > its planet designation ...
>
> Why? It's just one of many tiny chunks of rock the same orbit. Hell,
> even it's own moon is so big they revolve around each other. Why
> isn't that a planet?
They found it and called it a planet ...
>
> > Like many rules ... Pluto should have been grandfathered into keeping
> > its planet designation ...
>
> Why? It's just one of many tiny chunks of rock the same orbit. Hell,
> even it's own moon is so big they revolve around each other. Why
> isn't that a planet?
I know several PEs ..who became PEs way back when ,,, When they
changed they requirements ... They stayed PEs ...
There were other tiny chunks of rock (people with the same
qualifications) that now had new requirements that are not PEs ...
They were Grandfathered in ,,, just like Pluto should be ,,,
You just want to hurt Pluto's feelings ...
You are probably human ... maybe someday they'll change the
requirements ... and you won't qualify anymore ... I'm sure you'd be
pissed off ...
John Gogo
Apr 11, 2012, 8:14:11 PM4/11/12
to
> How Many Planets Are There in the Solar System?
>
>
> Because no matter what answer you give, you're going to be wrong.
>
> So, don't embarrasss yourself...don't try to answer it.
>
> And if a 3 year old askes you
>
>
> So, don't embarrasss yourself...don't try to answer it.
>
> And if a 3 year old askes you
>
> "How Many Planets Are There in the Solar System?"
>
>
> any answer you give him will be a lie.
>
> You might find somebody who will tell you how many Super-Earths are in the universe..
> but they won't be able to tell you...How Many Planets Are There in our own Solar System?
>
> Is there one person on this planet that can answer the question:
>
> You might find somebody who will tell you how many Super-Earths are in the universe..
> but they won't be able to tell you...How Many Planets Are There in our own Solar System?
>
> Is there one person on this planet that can answer the question:
> How Many Planets Are There in the Solar System?
>
>
> Any kids out there going to school tomorrow, I want you to ask your teacher this question:
> How Many Planets Are There in the Solar System?
>
> The Starmaker
>
What is the total quantification of capture that the Sun has attracted?
tphile2
Apr 11, 2012, 8:58:23 PM4/11/12
to
On Apr 11, 3:48 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Wayne Throop wrote:
>
> > :: If you mean, how many have been discovered so far, then eight.
>
> > : The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com>
> Wayne Throop wrote:
>
> > :: If you mean, how many have been discovered so far, then eight.
>
> > : I'm confused, is it eight or nine?
>
> > You found that simple declarative sentence confusing?
> > Or more likely, you pretend to for the sake of trollery.
> > Why am I not surprised?
>
> > How many bodies in the solar system have been discovered that orbit the
> > sun, are roughly spherical due to self-gravitation, and are alone in
> > their orbit? What's confusing about that? Simple, straightforward,
> > and the answer is eight.
>
> > There are of course corner cases. Arguably, earth should be disqualified
> > since arguably the moon is actually orbiting the sun (what with its
> > path being always curved towards the sun), but those arguments are not
> > convincing, so nobody sensible pays much attention to them.
>
> A planet doesn't need to be revolving a sun to be called a ...planet.
>
> I don't suscribe to the Idiots Astronomical Union (IAU)
That's subscribe, not suscribe, and aren't you the founding member
>
> > You found that simple declarative sentence confusing?
> > Or more likely, you pretend to for the sake of trollery.
> > Why am I not surprised?
>
> > How many bodies in the solar system have been discovered that orbit the
> > sun, are roughly spherical due to self-gravitation, and are alone in
> > their orbit? What's confusing about that? Simple, straightforward,
> > and the answer is eight.
>
> > There are of course corner cases. Arguably, earth should be disqualified
> > since arguably the moon is actually orbiting the sun (what with its
> > path being always curved towards the sun), but those arguments are not
> > convincing, so nobody sensible pays much attention to them.
>
> A planet doesn't need to be revolving a sun to be called a ...planet.
>
> I don't suscribe to the Idiots Astronomical Union (IAU)
anyway?
ala
Apr 11, 2012, 9:00:39 PM4/11/12
to
"tphile2" <tph...@cableone.net> wrote in message
news:0a39ac53-6e46-41c5...@h12g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
>That's subscribe, not suscribe, and aren't you the founding member
>anyway?>
what has happened to all the memes!??!???!111
It's SUBSCIRB
Wayne Throop
Apr 11, 2012, 9:11:08 PM4/11/12
to
: "Androcles" <H...@Hgwrts.phscs.Apr.2012>
: EVERYTHING in the Solar System orbits the Sun, otherwise it would not
useful distinction to be made between the trajectory of something like
Ceres, and that of something like Phobos. In the normal way of speaking
the former orbits the sun, and the latter orbits Mars. Picking another
terminology doesn't change the useful disctinction to be made between
these two sets of circumstances. One is a moon, and hence not a
candidate for being a planet in its own right. The other is a
candicate, because it's not a moon. (It's also not a planet, but
that's because of all the other asteroids, which distinguishes it
from, say Mercury).
: EVERYTHING in the Solar System orbits the Sun, otherwise it would not
: belong to the Solar System.
If you want to pick nits about terminology, feel free. There's still a
useful distinction to be made between the trajectory of something like
Ceres, and that of something like Phobos. In the normal way of speaking
the former orbits the sun, and the latter orbits Mars. Picking another
terminology doesn't change the useful disctinction to be made between
these two sets of circumstances. One is a moon, and hence not a
candidate for being a planet in its own right. The other is a
candicate, because it's not a moon. (It's also not a planet, but
that's because of all the other asteroids, which distinguishes it
from, say Mercury).
Wayne Throop
Apr 11, 2012, 9:18:29 PM4/11/12
to
: The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
: A planet doesn't need to be revolving a sun to be called a ...planet.
How many planets are in the solar system if we call pluto a planet?
Eight. Just because you call something a planet doesn't make it one.
This is similar to dogs. How many legs does a bog-standard dog have if
you call the tail a leg. Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one.
: A planet doesn't need to be revolving a sun to be called a ...planet.
How many planets are in the solar system if we call pluto a planet?
Eight. Just because you call something a planet doesn't make it one.
This is similar to dogs. How many legs does a bog-standard dog have if
you call the tail a leg. Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one.
cloud dreamer
Apr 11, 2012, 9:29:51 PM4/11/12
to
him the sky is blue and he would dispute it. It's disturbing to think he
has children.
He fits fine in a killfile. No sense in feeding his delusions.
..
--
I told you so. You damned fools.
- H.G. Wells
Androcles
Apr 11, 2012, 10:18:25 PM4/11/12
to
a planet instead of excluding Earth. Phobos isn't roughly spherical,
but Titan is and it is larger than Mercury. It also has an atmosphere,
which Mercury does not.
Wayne Throop
Apr 11, 2012, 11:17:12 PM4/11/12
to
: "Androcles" <H...@Hgwrts.phscs.Apr.2012>
: I was pointing out that your lame definition of a planet makes Luna a
in its orbit (paraphrase of the IAU's "cleared its orbit of smaller
bodies" requirement). If you don't consider the moon to be orbiting
earth, then neither can be a planet, since they are both in a roughly
1au radius orbit. Neither is alone.
There are essentially three characteristics involved in planethood
by the now-conventional definition.
1. how massive the body
2. what is's orbiting
3. what other things are orbiting nearby
: Phobos isn't roughly spherical,
Which is irrelevant, since I was using it as an example of an object
not in orbit around the sun, not as an example of a planet.
: but Titan is and it is larger than Mercury. It also has an
you object to the distinction, and no matter what you want to *call*
the distinction, the Titan's trajectory is not an orbit around the sun
in any reasonable sense. Its trajectory differs from Saturn's in that
Saturn's is much closer to being an elipse.
The moon's case is borderline. Titan's isn't.
: I was pointing out that your lame definition of a planet makes Luna a
: planet instead of excluding Earth.
No, because my lame definigtion of a planet requires it to be alone
in its orbit (paraphrase of the IAU's "cleared its orbit of smaller
bodies" requirement). If you don't consider the moon to be orbiting
earth, then neither can be a planet, since they are both in a roughly
1au radius orbit. Neither is alone.
There are essentially three characteristics involved in planethood
by the now-conventional definition.
1. how massive the body
2. what is's orbiting
3. what other things are orbiting nearby
: Phobos isn't roughly spherical,
Which is irrelevant, since I was using it as an example of an object
not in orbit around the sun, not as an example of a planet.
: but Titan is and it is larger than Mercury. It also has an
: atmosphere, which Mercury does not.
But doesn't orbit the sun. No matter how many nits you pick, or how much
you object to the distinction, and no matter what you want to *call*
the distinction, the Titan's trajectory is not an orbit around the sun
in any reasonable sense. Its trajectory differs from Saturn's in that
Saturn's is much closer to being an elipse.
The moon's case is borderline. Titan's isn't.
Androcles
Apr 11, 2012, 11:40:46 PM4/11/12
to
news:13342...@sheol.org...
planet, you fucking moron. You can stamp your feet, yell "No" and
scream if you want to.
>: "Androcles" <H...@Hgwrts.phscs.Apr.2012>
> : I was pointing out that your lame definition of a planet makes Luna a
> : planet instead of excluding Earth.
>
> No,
Yes, snipping fuckwit, your lame definition of a planet makes Luna a
> : I was pointing out that your lame definition of a planet makes Luna a
> : planet instead of excluding Earth.
>
> No,
planet, you fucking moron. You can stamp your feet, yell "No" and
scream if you want to.
jonathan
Apr 12, 2012, 12:01:19 AM4/12/12
to
"ala" <alac...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:RsednaPQ8ofBbxnS...@earthlink.com...
>
> "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:dYednX6hGLNNHRnS...@giganews.com...
>> news:13340...@sheol.org...
>>> :: If you want to keep Pluto, are you then willing to accept as planets
>>> :: the predicted dozens or more such objects yet to be discovered in the
>>> :: outer Solar System?
>>>
>>> : Evelyn Leeper <ele...@optonline.net>
>>> :: outer Solar System?
>>>
>>> : Sure.
>>>
>>> But why would anybody *want* to keep Pluto? What reasonable motive is
>>> there, really? And should we promote, say, Ceres?
>>> But why would anybody *want* to keep Pluto? What reasonable motive is
>>>
>>
>>
>> Just call Pluto ...Planet-X
>>
>>
>> s
>
> itym satellite x
>>
I think the definition of a planet shouldn't be
by size, but whether it's large enough for
the interior to be segregated.
Our moon for instance, is certainly large enough
to be considered a planet. I think the Earth-Moon
system is really a binary planet system. It's rare
for a moon to be such a large fraction of the size
of the host planet.
And since Pluto is still a fuzzy dot in a telescope
I think it's too soon to call it a planet or not.
s
>>
>
Androcles
Apr 12, 2012, 12:17:52 AM4/12/12
to
news:L5CdnWDo7ruRyRvS...@giganews.com...
Luna is a moon because the Earth-Luna barycentre is
below the surface of the Earth. If the separation were
greater so that the barycentre were above the surface
the system would be a double planet. You are correct
in re size, the Saturnian moon Titan is larger than
Mercury.
below the surface of the Earth. If the separation were
greater so that the barycentre were above the surface
the system would be a double planet. You are correct
in re size, the Saturnian moon Titan is larger than
Mercury.
Wayne Throop
Apr 12, 2012, 2:04:39 AM4/12/12
to
: "Androcles" <H...@Hgwrts.phscs.Apr.2012>
: Yes, snipping fuckwit, your lame definition of a planet makes Luna a
: planet, you fucking moron.
Ignoring the reason you are wrong about that won't sudenly make you right.
And it's hardly "mine", it'a juat a paraphrase of the IAU's.
( and in case you forgot, the reason you're wrong about it is the
requirement that a planet "clear its orbit"; neither earth nor luna
qualify for a planet, if luna isn't orbiting the earth; id luna is
orbitibng earth, then earth qualifies and luna does not )
: Yes, snipping fuckwit, your lame definition of a planet makes Luna a
: planet, you fucking moron.
Ignoring the reason you are wrong about that won't sudenly make you right.
And it's hardly "mine", it'a juat a paraphrase of the IAU's.
( and in case you forgot, the reason you're wrong about it is the
requirement that a planet "clear its orbit"; neither earth nor luna
qualify for a planet, if luna isn't orbiting the earth; id luna is
orbitibng earth, then earth qualifies and luna does not )
Duggy
Apr 12, 2012, 3:09:07 AM4/12/12
to
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
Apr 12, 2012, 3:11:00 AM4/12/12
to
On Apr 12, 10:05 am, number6 <snumb...@aol.com> wrote:
> You are probably human ... maybe someday they'll change the
> requirements ... and you won't qualify anymore ... I'm sure you'd be
> pissed off ...
If you qualify, I'll be glad not to.
> You are probably human ... maybe someday they'll change the
> requirements ... and you won't qualify anymore ... I'm sure you'd be
> pissed off ...
===
= DUG.
===
Androcles
Apr 12, 2012, 5:32:15 AM4/12/12
to
>: "Androcles" <H...@Hgwrts.phscs.Apr.2012>
> : Yes, snipping fuckwit, your lame definition of a planet makes Luna a
> : planet, you fucking moron.
>
> Ignoring the reason you are wrong
Luna orbits the sun, is roughly spherical due to self-gravitation, and is
> : Yes, snipping fuckwit, your lame definition of a planet makes Luna a
> : planet, you fucking moron.
>
> Ignoring the reason you are wrong
alone in its orbit. What's confusing about that? Simple, straightforward,
and the answer is YOUR definition is wrong, shithead.
Nix
Apr 12, 2012, 8:13:32 AM4/12/12
to
On 11 Apr 2012, Wayne Throop outgrape:
> and the answer is eight.
Why don't the Trojan asteroids lead to Jupiter being defined as 'not a
planet'? It is clearly not alone in its orbit (which dodge was
presumably added to prevent Ceres being defined as a planet).
> There are of course corner cases. Arguably, earth should be disqualified
> since arguably the moon is actually orbiting the sun (what with its
> path being always curved towards the sun), but those arguments are not
> convincing, so nobody sensible pays much attention to them.
Ah, right. So the real reason is that they could get away with
de-planeting Pluto, but de-planeting Earth or Jupiter would just make
the name 'planet' useless. :)
--
NULL && (void)
> How many bodies in the solar system have been discovered that orbit the
> sun, are roughly spherical due to self-gravitation, and are alone in
> their orbit? What's confusing about that? Simple, straightforward,
> sun, are roughly spherical due to self-gravitation, and are alone in
> and the answer is eight.
Why don't the Trojan asteroids lead to Jupiter being defined as 'not a
planet'? It is clearly not alone in its orbit (which dodge was
presumably added to prevent Ceres being defined as a planet).
> There are of course corner cases. Arguably, earth should be disqualified
> since arguably the moon is actually orbiting the sun (what with its
> path being always curved towards the sun), but those arguments are not
> convincing, so nobody sensible pays much attention to them.
de-planeting Pluto, but de-planeting Earth or Jupiter would just make
the name 'planet' useless. :)
--
NULL && (void)
oriel36
Apr 12, 2012, 8:25:21 AM4/12/12
to
On Apr 12, 4:17 am, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
> : "Androcles" <H...@Hgwrts.phscs.Apr.2012>
> : I was pointing out that your lame definition of a planet makes Luna a
> : planet instead of excluding Earth.
>
> No, because my lame definigtion of a planet requires it to be alone
> in its orbit (paraphrase of the IAU's "cleared its orbit of smaller
> bodies" requirement).
Of course the orbit of Pluto temporarily changes place with Neptune so
> : "Androcles" <H...@Hgwrts.phscs.Apr.2012>
> : I was pointing out that your lame definition of a planet makes Luna a
> : planet instead of excluding Earth.
>
> No, because my lame definigtion of a planet requires it to be alone
> in its orbit (paraphrase of the IAU's "cleared its orbit of smaller
> bodies" requirement).
Neptune hasn't cleared its orbit of smaller objects so I guess Neptune
is disqualified as a planet.
There are 9 planets with the last one a reminder that using your own
eyes and interpreting things correctly defines an astronomer besides
the world has gotten used to the increase in numbers of planets from 6
to 9.There is such a thing as common sense and style when approaching
astronomical matters but this 'planet definition' debacle isn't one of
them.
jonathan
Apr 12, 2012, 8:32:44 AM4/12/12
to
"Androcles" <H...@Hgwrts.phscs.Apr.2012> wrote in message
news:THshr.132327$o93....@fx05.am4...
>
> Luna is a moon because the Earth-Luna barycentre is
> below the surface of the Earth. If the separation were
> greater so that the barycentre were above the surface
> the system would be a double planet.
I never thought of that, thanks.
> Luna is a moon because the Earth-Luna barycentre is
> below the surface of the Earth. If the separation were
> greater so that the barycentre were above the surface
> the system would be a double planet.
Androcles
Apr 12, 2012, 8:34:25 AM4/12/12
to
"Nix" <nix-ra...@esperi.org.uk> wrote in message
news:87k41l6...@spindle.srvr.nix...
they move against the "fixed" stars. Thus the Sun and Moon were
once planets. Planets were once gods that moved in their heavens
and there were seven of them, for which the days of the week
were named. The ancients were not aware of Neptune and Uranus
moving, they are not bright enough and move too slowly.
Mason Barge
Apr 12, 2012, 10:28:59 AM4/12/12
to
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 11:33:17 -0400, Jim T. <x@y.z> wrote:
>On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 06:26:44 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net>
>wrote:
>
>>In article
>><70bf8719-8e4f-4fbf...@z38g2000vbu.googlegroups.com>,
>> T Guy <Tim.B...@redbridge.gov.uk> wrote:
>>> system which I'm in.
>>
>>If someone has a magnifying glass and tweezers, I'd be happy to kick
>>Neil deGrasse Tyson in his miniature genitals 9 times.
in the house, it becomes a pet.
I'd keep it for several reasons. First, school systems can't afford to
replace textbooks over something this trivial. Second, there are all
those trivia games, hanging mobiles, science museum exhibits, etc. Third,
it would be fun to screw with those power-hungry geeks who decided to
change it.
Find the other comparable-sized bodies, give them names and call them
"Planetoids" so we can have a new trivia question. Put an asterisk beside
Pluto if you have to, but keep it on the list.
>On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 06:26:44 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net>
>wrote:
>
>>In article
>><70bf8719-8e4f-4fbf...@z38g2000vbu.googlegroups.com>,
>> T Guy <Tim.B...@redbridge.gov.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 10, 6:32 am, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>> > Don't answer the qustion..
>>> > How Many Planets Are There in the Solar System?
>>> >
>>> > Because no matter what answer you give, you're going to be wrong.
>>> >
>>> > So, don't embarrasss yourself...don't try to answer it.
>>> >
>>> > And if a 3 year old askes you
>>> >
>>> > "How Many Planets Are There in the Solar System?"
>>> >
>>> > any answer you give him will be a lie.
>>> >
>>> > You might find somebody who will tell you how many Super-Earths are in the
>>> > universe..
>>> > but they won't be able to tell you...How Many Planets Are There in our own
>>> > Solar System?
>>> >
>>> > Is there one person on this planet that can answer the question:
>>> > How Many Planets Are There in the Solar System?
>>> >
>>> > Any kids out there going to school tomorrow, I want you to ask your teacher
>>> > this question:
>>> > How Many Planets Are There in the Solar System?
>>>
>>> There are eight planets in the Solar System. At least in the solar
>>> On Apr 10, 6:32 am, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>> > Don't answer the qustion..
>>> > How Many Planets Are There in the Solar System?
>>> >
>>> > Because no matter what answer you give, you're going to be wrong.
>>> >
>>> > So, don't embarrasss yourself...don't try to answer it.
>>> >
>>> > And if a 3 year old askes you
>>> >
>>> > "How Many Planets Are There in the Solar System?"
>>> >
>>> > any answer you give him will be a lie.
>>> >
>>> > You might find somebody who will tell you how many Super-Earths are in the
>>> > universe..
>>> > but they won't be able to tell you...How Many Planets Are There in our own
>>> > Solar System?
>>> >
>>> > Is there one person on this planet that can answer the question:
>>> > How Many Planets Are There in the Solar System?
>>> >
>>> > Any kids out there going to school tomorrow, I want you to ask your teacher
>>> > this question:
>>> > How Many Planets Are There in the Solar System?
>>>
>>> system which I'm in.
>>
>>If someone has a magnifying glass and tweezers, I'd be happy to kick
>>Neil deGrasse Tyson in his miniature genitals 9 times.
>
>If you want to keep Pluto, are you then willing to accept as planets
>the predicted dozens or more such objects yet to be discovered in the
>outer Solar System?
The problem with Pluto is that, once you give a stray a name and bring it
>If you want to keep Pluto, are you then willing to accept as planets
>the predicted dozens or more such objects yet to be discovered in the
>outer Solar System?
in the house, it becomes a pet.
I'd keep it for several reasons. First, school systems can't afford to
replace textbooks over something this trivial. Second, there are all
those trivia games, hanging mobiles, science museum exhibits, etc. Third,
it would be fun to screw with those power-hungry geeks who decided to
change it.
Find the other comparable-sized bodies, give them names and call them
"Planetoids" so we can have a new trivia question. Put an asterisk beside
Pluto if you have to, but keep it on the list.
Michael Moroney
Apr 12, 2012, 10:48:34 AM4/12/12
to
To the base question, the answer is either 8 (new definition of planet) or
about 12+ by now (old definition), as several Pluto-like bodies
("plutoids") have been discovered, at least one (Eris) larger than Pluto.
They expect there may be about 100 of them. All are quite small, a
fraction of the size of our Moon.
"jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> writes:
>"Androcles" <H...@Hgwrts.phscs.Apr.2012> wrote in message
>news:THshr.132327$o93....@fx05.am4...
>>
>> Luna is a moon because the Earth-Luna barycentre is
>> below the surface of the Earth. If the separation were
>> greater so that the barycentre were above the surface
>> the system would be a double planet.
>I never thought of that, thanks.
Whether the barycenter is above or below the surface of the planet depends
on the distance between them as well as the mass. Elevate the moon to
a higher orbit, and the barycenter is above Earth's surface, with no
change in mass involved. Same goes if the Earth was made denser, same
mass but smaller radius.
about 12+ by now (old definition), as several Pluto-like bodies
("plutoids") have been discovered, at least one (Eris) larger than Pluto.
They expect there may be about 100 of them. All are quite small, a
fraction of the size of our Moon.
"jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> writes:
>"Androcles" <H...@Hgwrts.phscs.Apr.2012> wrote in message
>news:THshr.132327$o93....@fx05.am4...
>>
>> Luna is a moon because the Earth-Luna barycentre is
>> below the surface of the Earth. If the separation were
>> greater so that the barycentre were above the surface
>> the system would be a double planet.
>I never thought of that, thanks.
on the distance between them as well as the mass. Elevate the moon to
a higher orbit, and the barycenter is above Earth's surface, with no
change in mass involved. Same goes if the Earth was made denser, same
mass but smaller radius.
Howard Brazee
Apr 12, 2012, 11:00:16 AM4/12/12
to
On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 00:01:19 -0400, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>Our moon for instance, is certainly large enough
>to be considered a planet. I think the Earth-Moon
>system is really a binary planet system. It's rare
>for a moon to be such a large fraction of the size
>of the host planet.
I strongly suspect you're right about its rarity. But we're just
starting to learn about planets outside of our local neighborhood.
Maybe we're wrong about its rarity.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
wrote:
>Our moon for instance, is certainly large enough
>to be considered a planet. I think the Earth-Moon
>system is really a binary planet system. It's rare
>for a moon to be such a large fraction of the size
>of the host planet.
starting to learn about planets outside of our local neighborhood.
Maybe we're wrong about its rarity.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
David DeLaney
Apr 12, 2012, 11:29:59 AM4/12/12
to
First, snipping at least one of the groups Starmaker habitually crossposts
to EVERY SINGLE TIME HE POSTS, look at your Newsgroups: headers, people.
Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Find the other comparable-sized bodies, give them names and call them
>"Planetoids" so we can have a new trivia question. Put an asterisk beside
>Pluto if you have to, but keep it on the list.
"Plutonoids".
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
to EVERY SINGLE TIME HE POSTS, look at your Newsgroups: headers, people.
Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Find the other comparable-sized bodies, give them names and call them
>"Planetoids" so we can have a new trivia question. Put an asterisk beside
>Pluto if you have to, but keep it on the list.
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
David Dyer-Bennet
Apr 12, 2012, 11:36:53 AM4/12/12
to
"Androcles" <H...@Hgwrts.phscs.Apr.2012> writes:
> "Wayne Throop" <thr...@sheol.org> wrote in message
> news:13342...@sheol.org...
>>: "Androcles" <H...@Hgwrts.phscs.Apr.2012>
>> : Yes, snipping fuckwit, your lame definition of a planet makes Luna a
>> : planet, you fucking moron.
>>
>> Ignoring the reason you are wrong
>
>
> Luna orbits the sun, is roughly spherical due to self-gravitation, and is
> alone in its orbit.
This "alone" thing...I feel like you're overlooking something.
> "Wayne Throop" <thr...@sheol.org> wrote in message
> news:13342...@sheol.org...
>>: "Androcles" <H...@Hgwrts.phscs.Apr.2012>
>> : Yes, snipping fuckwit, your lame definition of a planet makes Luna a
>> : planet, you fucking moron.
>>
>> Ignoring the reason you are wrong
>
>
> Luna orbits the sun, is roughly spherical due to self-gravitation, and is
> alone in its orbit.
Something fairly obvious. Something you're sitting on.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Apr 12, 2012, 12:07:53 PM4/12/12
to
On 4/12/12 11:00 AM, Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 00:01:19 -0400, "jonathan"<wr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Our moon for instance, is certainly large enough
>> to be considered a planet. I think the Earth-Moon
>> system is really a binary planet system. It's rare
>> for a moon to be such a large fraction of the size
>> of the host planet.
>
> I strongly suspect you're right about its rarity.
Depends on what you mean by "rare"; Pluto-Charon is similar; IIRC
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 00:01:19 -0400, "jonathan"<wr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Our moon for instance, is certainly large enough
>> to be considered a planet. I think the Earth-Moon
>> system is really a binary planet system. It's rare
>> for a moon to be such a large fraction of the size
>> of the host planet.
>
> I strongly suspect you're right about its rarity.
Charon's proportionately even larger.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Androcles
Apr 12, 2012, 12:21:46 PM4/12/12
to
"David Dyer-Bennet" <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote in message
news:ylfkobqx...@dd-b.net...
> "Androcles" <H...@Hgwrts.phscs.Apr.2012> writes:
>
>> "Wayne Throop" <thr...@sheol.org> wrote in message
>> news:13342...@sheol.org...
>>>: "Androcles" <H...@Hgwrts.phscs.Apr.2012>
>>> : Yes, snipping fuckwit, your lame definition of a planet makes Luna a
>>> : planet, you fucking moron.
>>>
>>> Ignoring the reason you are wrong
>>
>>
>> Luna orbits the sun, is roughly spherical due to self-gravitation, and is
>> alone in its orbit.
>
> This "alone" thing...I feel like you're overlooking something.
> Something fairly obvious. Something you're sitting on.
As pointed out by Nix, the Trojans share the same orbit
>
>> "Wayne Throop" <thr...@sheol.org> wrote in message
>> news:13342...@sheol.org...
>>>: "Androcles" <H...@Hgwrts.phscs.Apr.2012>
>>> : Yes, snipping fuckwit, your lame definition of a planet makes Luna a
>>> : planet, you fucking moron.
>>>
>>> Ignoring the reason you are wrong
>>
>>
>> Luna orbits the sun, is roughly spherical due to self-gravitation, and is
>> alone in its orbit.
>
> This "alone" thing...I feel like you're overlooking something.
> Something fairly obvious. Something you're sitting on.
with Jupiter. By the moron Throop's definition, Jupiter
is not a planet as it is not alone in its orbit.
Nothing shares the same orbit with Luna, the Earth alternates
its altitude with Luna relative to the Sun.
This may be of interest:
http://faculty.ifmo.ru/butikov/Projects/Collection.html
Wayne Throop
Apr 12, 2012, 12:37:43 PM4/12/12
to
: "Androcles" <H...@Hgwrts.phscs.Apr.2012>
: Luna orbits the sun, is roughly spherical due to self-gravitation, and
Specifically, it's not alone in its orbit.
: Luna orbits the sun, is roughly spherical due to self-gravitation, and
: is alone in its orbit. What's confusing about that?
Nothing confusing, it's simply wrong.
Specifically, it's not alone in its orbit.
Wayne Throop
Apr 12, 2012, 12:39:16 PM4/12/12
to
: "Androcles" <H...@Hgwrts.phscs.Apr.2012>
: As pointed out by Nix, the Trojans share the same orbit with Jupiter.
For obvious reasons.
: As pointed out by Nix, the Trojans share the same orbit with Jupiter.
: By the moron Throop's definition, Jupiter is not a planet as it is not
: alone in its orbit.
Nope. Lagrange points don't count.
: alone in its orbit.
For obvious reasons.
Wayne Throop
Apr 12, 2012, 12:43:11 PM4/12/12
to
: oriel36 <kellehe...@gmail.com>
: Of course the orbit of Pluto temporarily changes place with Neptune so
has caught this glarring error? Maybe you should tell them.
: There are 9 planets with the last one a reminder that using your own
that Neptune is a planet, and Pluto is right out, innit?
: Of course the orbit of Pluto temporarily changes place with Neptune so
: Neptune hasn't cleared its orbit of smaller objects so I guess Neptune
: is disqualified as a planet.
Interesting guess. Do you think you're right and nobody at the IAU
: is disqualified as a planet.
has caught this glarring error? Maybe you should tell them.
: There are 9 planets with the last one a reminder that using your own
: eyes and interpreting things correctly defines an astronomer
If you're using your own eyes, then it's at least questionable
that Neptune is a planet, and Pluto is right out, innit?
Jeff-Relf.Me
Apr 12, 2012, 12:46:43 PM4/12/12
to
Were Earth tidally locked to the moon, or if the Moon
( just 1% of Earth's mass ) wasn't tidally locked to earth,
you could call it a binary planet system.
Mercury, the smallest planet (by weight), has 5.5% of earth's mass;
were it tidally locked to Earth, and Earth wasn't locked to Mercury,
Mercury would be our moon, not a planet.
Here's where Michael⋅Moroney usually jumps in to tell us
Venus is tidally locked to Earth ( so it's a moon ), see:
news:ji66oe$cea$2...@pcls6.std.com
cloud dreamer
Apr 12, 2012, 12:52:46 PM4/12/12
to
On 12/04/2012 2:13 PM, Wayne Throop wrote:
> : oriel36<kellehe...@gmail.com>
> : Of course the orbit of Pluto temporarily changes place with Neptune so
> : Neptune hasn't cleared its orbit of smaller objects so I guess Neptune
> : is disqualified as a planet.
>
> Interesting guess. Do you think you're right and nobody at the IAU
> has caught this glarring error? Maybe you should tell them.
>
Definitely not an error. It's a matter of defining the interpretation:
> : oriel36<kellehe...@gmail.com>
> : Of course the orbit of Pluto temporarily changes place with Neptune so
> : Neptune hasn't cleared its orbit of smaller objects so I guess Neptune
> : is disqualified as a planet.
>
> Interesting guess. Do you think you're right and nobody at the IAU
> has caught this glarring error? Maybe you should tell them.
>
Stern, currently leading the NASA New Horizons mission to Pluto,
disagrees with the reclassification of Pluto on the basis that—like
Pluto—Earth, Mars, Jupiter and Neptune have not cleared their orbital
neighbourhoods either. Earth co-orbits with 10,000 near-Earth asteroids
(NEAs), and Jupiter has 100,000 Trojan asteroids in its orbital path.
"If Neptune had cleared its zone, Pluto wouldn't be there," he now says.[5]
However, in 2000 Stern himself wrote, "we define an überplanet as a
planetary body in orbit about a star that is dynamically important
enough to have cleared its neighboring planetesimals ..." and a few
paragraphs later, "From a dynamical standpoint, our solar system clearly
contains 8 überplanets"—including Earth, Mars, Jupiter, and Neptune.[2]
Most planetary scientists understand "clearing the neighborhood" to
refer to an object being the dominant mass in its vicinity, for instance
Earth being many times more massive than all of the NEAs combined, and
Neptune "dwarfing" Pluto and the rest of the KBOs.[3]
Stern and Levison's paper shows that it is possible to estimate whether
an object is likely to dominate its neighborhood given only the object's
mass and orbital period, known values even for extrasolar planets. In
any case, the recent IAU definition specifically limits itself only to
objects orbiting the Sun.[1]
..
--
We must change the way we live
Or the climate will do it for us
Nix
Apr 12, 2012, 1:08:04 PM4/12/12
to
On 12 Apr 2012, Androcles outgrape:
were (largely) named after Greco-Roman gods: the days of the week were
named after Norse ones. It's true that some of those gods have a common
origin, but neither was named after the other.
--
NULL && (void)
> Planets were once gods that moved in their heavens
> and there were seven of them, for which the days of the week
> were named.
Uh, the days of the week were not named after the planets. The planets
> and there were seven of them, for which the days of the week
> were named.
were (largely) named after Greco-Roman gods: the days of the week were
named after Norse ones. It's true that some of those gods have a common
origin, but neither was named after the other.
--
NULL && (void)
The Starmaker
Apr 12, 2012, 1:17:23 PM4/12/12
to
John Gogo wrote:
>
> What is the total quantification of capture that the Sun has attracted?
I would never tell a kid to ask that question to his teacher, ...he would get expelled!
>
> On Apr 10, 12:32 am, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > Don't answer the qustion..
> > How Many Planets Are There in the Solar System?
> >
> > Because no matter what answer you give, you're going to be wrong.
> >
> > So, don't embarrasss yourself...don't try to answer it.
> >
> > And if a 3 year old askes you
> >
> > "How Many Planets Are There in the Solar System?"
> >
> > any answer you give him will be a lie.
> >
> > You might find somebody who will tell you how many Super-Earths are in the universe..
> > but they won't be able to tell you...How Many Planets Are There in our own Solar System?
> >
> > Is there one person on this planet that can answer the question:
> > How Many Planets Are There in the Solar System?
> >
> > Any kids out there going to school tomorrow, I want you to ask your teacher this question:
> > How Many Planets Are There in the Solar System?
> >
> > The Starmaker
> On Apr 10, 12:32 am, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > Don't answer the qustion..
> > How Many Planets Are There in the Solar System?
> >
> > Because no matter what answer you give, you're going to be wrong.
> >
> > So, don't embarrasss yourself...don't try to answer it.
> >
> > And if a 3 year old askes you
> >
> > "How Many Planets Are There in the Solar System?"
> >
> > any answer you give him will be a lie.
> >
> > You might find somebody who will tell you how many Super-Earths are in the universe..
> > but they won't be able to tell you...How Many Planets Are There in our own Solar System?
> >
> > Is there one person on this planet that can answer the question:
> > How Many Planets Are There in the Solar System?
> >
> > Any kids out there going to school tomorrow, I want you to ask your teacher this question:
> > How Many Planets Are There in the Solar System?
> >
>
> What is the total quantification of capture that the Sun has attracted?
I would never tell a kid to ask that question to his teacher, ...he would get expelled!
Nix
Apr 12, 2012, 1:30:44 PM4/12/12
to
On 12 Apr 2012, Wayne Throop spake thusly:
I thought that was likely: I was just curious how they managed to define
it away, since I don't actually think they ended up defining Jupiter as
not a planet. (It's not like the astronomical definition of a planet
need relate to its common usage: this is just the standards pedant in me
coming out to play.)
(my earlier Jovian-dweller definition of planet -- a body of enough mass
to retain a decent hydrohelium atmosphere -- would in fact have classed
the Sun as a planet. Oops. A bit too hot for the Jovians.)
--
NULL && (void)
it away, since I don't actually think they ended up defining Jupiter as
not a planet. (It's not like the astronomical definition of a planet
need relate to its common usage: this is just the standards pedant in me
coming out to play.)
(my earlier Jovian-dweller definition of planet -- a body of enough mass
to retain a decent hydrohelium atmosphere -- would in fact have classed
the Sun as a planet. Oops. A bit too hot for the Jovians.)
--
NULL && (void)
The Starmaker
Apr 12, 2012, 1:39:37 PM4/12/12
to
This, this...'Pluto Thing'
has nothing to do with Science.
Nothing!
They 'demoted' Pluto because 'some guy' at the
Idiots Astronomical Union (IAU)
got jealous
because some guy named Mike Brown
discovered another planet..
the tenth planet, Eris.
So to take away from
his discovery...the jealous
guy got rid of Pluto.
It's a "jealousy" thing..
nothing to do with Science.
It's the Idiots Astronomical Union (IAU)..
they are a bunch of Idiots!
The Starmaker
Earth, Mars, Jupiter and Neptune have also not fully cleared their orbital zones.
Earth orbits with 10,000 near-Earth asteroids.
Jupiter, meanwhile, is accompanied by 100,000 Trojan asteroids on its orbital path.
There are nine planets. Pluto is a planet. I don't suscribe to the Idiots Astronomical Union (IAU)...
and neither should you.
has nothing to do with Science.
Nothing!
They 'demoted' Pluto because 'some guy' at the
Idiots Astronomical Union (IAU)
got jealous
because some guy named Mike Brown
discovered another planet..
the tenth planet, Eris.
So to take away from
his discovery...the jealous
guy got rid of Pluto.
It's a "jealousy" thing..
nothing to do with Science.
It's the Idiots Astronomical Union (IAU)..
they are a bunch of Idiots!
The Starmaker
Earth, Mars, Jupiter and Neptune have also not fully cleared their orbital zones.
Earth orbits with 10,000 near-Earth asteroids.
Jupiter, meanwhile, is accompanied by 100,000 Trojan asteroids on its orbital path.
There are nine planets. Pluto is a planet. I don't suscribe to the Idiots Astronomical Union (IAU)...
and neither should you.
Wayne Throop
Apr 12, 2012, 1:42:48 PM4/12/12
to
: The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
: There are nine planets. Pluto is a planet
You're free to make up your own definitions.
Everybody else is free to ignore your kvetching,
and use the conventional definitions.
If anybody with two brain cells to rub together considers the set
mercury, venus, earth, mars, jupiter, saturn, uranus, neptune and pluto,
with regard to their orbital path and the kinds of objects nearby,
there's a rather obvious one-of-these-things-is-not-like-the-others thing
going on. The only reason pluto has the orbit it does is because it's
in a 3:2 resonance with neptune. Pluto is neptune's bitch, and that
is an obvious and reasonable reason to classify it differently than the
other members of the above set.
( And the trojans are jupiter's bitch, every bit as much as phobos
is mars' bitch. Jupiter *cleared* their asses, fair and square. )
The "clear their orbit" clause the IAU came up with is the most ambiguous
and arguable part of their definition of "planet". But just because
it's the *most* ambiguous doesn't mean it's all that ambiguous in an
absolute sense, and there are, of course, borderline cases for most any
definition you'd care to make.
: There are nine planets. Pluto is a planet
You're free to make up your own definitions.
Everybody else is free to ignore your kvetching,
and use the conventional definitions.
If anybody with two brain cells to rub together considers the set
mercury, venus, earth, mars, jupiter, saturn, uranus, neptune and pluto,
with regard to their orbital path and the kinds of objects nearby,
there's a rather obvious one-of-these-things-is-not-like-the-others thing
going on. The only reason pluto has the orbit it does is because it's
in a 3:2 resonance with neptune. Pluto is neptune's bitch, and that
is an obvious and reasonable reason to classify it differently than the
other members of the above set.
( And the trojans are jupiter's bitch, every bit as much as phobos
is mars' bitch. Jupiter *cleared* their asses, fair and square. )
The "clear their orbit" clause the IAU came up with is the most ambiguous
and arguable part of their definition of "planet". But just because
it's the *most* ambiguous doesn't mean it's all that ambiguous in an
absolute sense, and there are, of course, borderline cases for most any
definition you'd care to make.
oriel36
Apr 12, 2012, 2:41:42 PM4/12/12
to
On Apr 12, 5:43 pm, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
> : oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com>
Longitude to which it is related -
"Now, in the former part of this book, I have treated about matters
pertaining to the strictness of measuring time; and have shewn the
deficiencies of such means as Mr. Graham had taken or made use of for
that purpose; and I have also treated of the improper, troublesome,
erroneous - tedious method, which the professors at Cambridge and
Oxford would have to be for the longitude at sea:"
John Harrison
The Lat/Long system allied with the AM/PM cycles defines the
equatorial circumference of our own planet in terms of 15 degrees and
1037.5 miles per hour with an entire rotation of the 24901 mile
equatorial circumference in 24 hours,it is a basic fact that I come
here before everyone here and insist that they recognize like men.
If they had spent less time defining things and actually presenting
known facts of our own planet there would have been none of this
nonsense of how planets in the solar system.
> : oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com>
> : Of course the orbit of Pluto temporarily changes place with Neptune so
> : Neptune hasn't cleared its orbit of smaller objects so I guess Neptune
> : is disqualified as a planet.
>
> Interesting guess. Do you think you're right and nobody at the IAU
> has caught this glarring error? Maybe you should tell them.
The IAU indeed,it looks like a 21st century version of the Board of
> : Neptune hasn't cleared its orbit of smaller objects so I guess Neptune
> : is disqualified as a planet.
>
> Interesting guess. Do you think you're right and nobody at the IAU
> has caught this glarring error? Maybe you should tell them.
Longitude to which it is related -
"Now, in the former part of this book, I have treated about matters
pertaining to the strictness of measuring time; and have shewn the
deficiencies of such means as Mr. Graham had taken or made use of for
that purpose; and I have also treated of the improper, troublesome,
erroneous - tedious method, which the professors at Cambridge and
Oxford would have to be for the longitude at sea:"
John Harrison
The Lat/Long system allied with the AM/PM cycles defines the
equatorial circumference of our own planet in terms of 15 degrees and
1037.5 miles per hour with an entire rotation of the 24901 mile
equatorial circumference in 24 hours,it is a basic fact that I come
here before everyone here and insist that they recognize like men.
If they had spent less time defining things and actually presenting
known facts of our own planet there would have been none of this
nonsense of how planets in the solar system.
Wayne Throop
Apr 12, 2012, 3:14:02 PM4/12/12
to
: oriel36 <kellehe...@gmail.com>
: If they had spent less time defining things and actually presenting
without using words with agreed-upon definitions?
: If they had spent less time defining things and actually presenting
: known facts of our own planet there would have been none of this
: nonsense of how planets in the solar system.
How do you present known facts
: nonsense of how planets in the solar system.
without using words with agreed-upon definitions?
Androcles
Apr 12, 2012, 3:39:34 PM4/12/12
to
>: "Androcles" <H...@Hgwrts.phscs.Apr.2012>
> : As pointed out by Nix, the Trojans share the same orbit with Jupiter.
> : By the moron Throop's definition, Jupiter is not a planet as it is not
> : alone in its orbit.
>
> Nope.
Arguably, you have no idea what a planet is, arguably arguable Throop, or
> : As pointed out by Nix, the Trojans share the same orbit with Jupiter.
> : By the moron Throop's definition, Jupiter is not a planet as it is not
> : alone in its orbit.
>
> Nope.
arguably what arguable L1, L2 and arguably L3 are.
"What's confusing about that? Simple, straightforward,
Case closed.
Androcles
Apr 12, 2012, 3:44:54 PM4/12/12
to
>: "Androcles" <H...@Hgwrts.phscs.Apr.2012>
> : Luna orbits the sun, is roughly spherical due to self-gravitation, and
> : is alone in its orbit. What's confusing about that?
>
> Nothing confusing, it's simply wrong.
Your simple-minded definition is simply wrong.
> : Luna orbits the sun, is roughly spherical due to self-gravitation, and
> : is alone in its orbit. What's confusing about that?
>
> Nothing confusing, it's simply wrong.
> Specifically, it's not alone in its orbit.
Duggy
Apr 12, 2012, 4:22:29 PM4/12/12
to
On Apr 12, 7:32 pm, "Androcles" <H...@Hgwrts.phscs.Apr.2012> wrote:
> Luna orbits the sun, is roughly spherical due to self-gravitation, and is
> alone in its orbit. What's confusing about that? Simple,
> Luna orbits the sun, is roughly spherical due to self-gravitation, and is
> straightforward, and the answer is YOUR definition is wrong, shithead.
Luna is alone in its orbit of the Earth, not of the sun.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
Apr 12, 2012, 4:24:45 PM4/12/12
to
===
= DUG.
===
oriel36
Apr 12, 2012, 4:47:48 PM4/12/12
to
> : If they had spent less time defining things and actually presenting
> : known facts of our own planet there would have been none of this
> : nonsense of how planets in the solar system.
>
> How do you present known facts
> without using words with agreed-upon definitions?
Hah !,a year before they created that definition debacle in 2006,I was
> : known facts of our own planet there would have been none of this
> : nonsense of how planets in the solar system.
>
> How do you present known facts
> without using words with agreed-upon definitions?
working on connecting planetary spherical deviation with crustal
evolution/motion which requires no useless definition of a planet and
the thing about it is that they still still call the Earth a 'rocky'
planet.
Knowing they can't compete as they are unable to express a maximum
equatorial speed for the Earth,can't work with an uneven rotational
gradient between equatorial and polar latitudes while unable to
connect planetary shape and plate tectonics using a common rotational
mechanism of differential rotation,I let them try to develop a
rotational mechanism through Wikipedia without proper attribution.In
short,the cruelty of the Board of Longitude is nothing compared to the
thievery of the present IAU bunch who still can't affirm the primary
string of facts relating to this planet in order for productive work
to get done.
In short,who cares about a definition,if a person needs to have a
planet defined for them,they shouldn't be near astronomy and the
original designation is good enough -
Yet [these orbital motions] differ in many ways [from the daily
rotation or first motion]. In the first place, they do not swing
around the same poles as the first motion, but run obliquely through
the zodiac. Secondly, these bodies are not seen moving uniformly in
their orbits, since the sun and moon are observed to be sometimes
slow, at other times faster in their course. Moreover, we see the
other five planets also retrograde at times, and stationary at either
end [of the regression]. And whereas the sun always advances along its
own direct path, they wander in various ways, straying sometimes to
the south and sometimes to the north; that is why they are called
"planets" [wanderers]. "
Copernicus
Had people any sense we would be discussing the orbital differences in
behaviors between planets as they orbit the Sun and moons as they
orbit planets.
Androcles
Apr 12, 2012, 4:51:46 PM4/12/12
to
news:8762d46...@spindle.srvr.nix...
SUN day
MOON day
TUESday: MARtes (Spanish), MARdi (French) MARtedi (Italian)
WEDNESday: Woden's day, Odin's day, Miecoles, MERCredi, MERColedl.
THORSday, Jueves, Jeudi, Giovedi (Jupiter's day),
FRIday, Viernes, Vendredi, Venerdi, Veneris
SATURday, Sabado, Samedi, Sabato, Sabbati
Norse gods and Greco-Roman gods are mixed up, but the planet/god
link of neolithic man is unmistakable in European languages.
English:
1 Sunday 2 Monday 3 Tuesday 4 Wednesday 5 Thursday 6 Friday 7 Saturday
Norwegian:
1 sxndag 2 mandag 3 Tirsdag 4 Onsdag 5 Torsdag 6 Fredag ??7 Lxrdag
Swedish:
1 Svndag 2 Mendag 3 Tisdag 4 Onsdag 5 Torsdag 6 Fredag ??7 Lvrdag
Danish:
1 Sxndag 2 Mandag 3 Tirsdag 4 Onsdag 5 Torsdag 6 Fredag ??7 Lxrdag
Dutch:
1 Zondag 2 Maandag 3 Dinsdag 4 Woensdag 5 Donderdag 6 Vrijdag 7 Zaterdag
French:
1 Dimanche 2 Lundi 3 Mardi 4 Mercredi 5 Jeudi 6 Vendredi 7 Samedi
Spanish:
1 Domingo 2 Lunes 3 Martes 4 Miircoles 5 Jueves 6 Viernes 7 Sabado
German:
1 Sonntag 2 Montag 3 Dienstag 4 Mittwoch 5 Donnerstag 6 Freitag 7 Samstag
(Some of the letters haven't made it through the computer).
Uh, planets were once gods that moved in their heavens and there
were seven of them, for which the days of the week were named,
uh-huh.
MOON day
TUESday: MARtes (Spanish), MARdi (French) MARtedi (Italian)
WEDNESday: Woden's day, Odin's day, Miecoles, MERCredi, MERColedl.
THORSday, Jueves, Jeudi, Giovedi (Jupiter's day),
FRIday, Viernes, Vendredi, Venerdi, Veneris
SATURday, Sabado, Samedi, Sabato, Sabbati
Norse gods and Greco-Roman gods are mixed up, but the planet/god
link of neolithic man is unmistakable in European languages.
English:
1 Sunday 2 Monday 3 Tuesday 4 Wednesday 5 Thursday 6 Friday 7 Saturday
Norwegian:
1 sxndag 2 mandag 3 Tirsdag 4 Onsdag 5 Torsdag 6 Fredag ??7 Lxrdag
Swedish:
1 Svndag 2 Mendag 3 Tisdag 4 Onsdag 5 Torsdag 6 Fredag ??7 Lvrdag
Danish:
1 Sxndag 2 Mandag 3 Tirsdag 4 Onsdag 5 Torsdag 6 Fredag ??7 Lxrdag
Dutch:
1 Zondag 2 Maandag 3 Dinsdag 4 Woensdag 5 Donderdag 6 Vrijdag 7 Zaterdag
French:
1 Dimanche 2 Lundi 3 Mardi 4 Mercredi 5 Jeudi 6 Vendredi 7 Samedi
Spanish:
1 Domingo 2 Lunes 3 Martes 4 Miircoles 5 Jueves 6 Viernes 7 Sabado
German:
1 Sonntag 2 Montag 3 Dienstag 4 Mittwoch 5 Donnerstag 6 Freitag 7 Samstag
(Some of the letters haven't made it through the computer).
Uh, planets were once gods that moved in their heavens and there
were seven of them, for which the days of the week were named,
uh-huh.
Androcles
Apr 12, 2012, 4:57:00 PM4/12/12
to
"Duggy" <p.allan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:41fec93f-8d24-4390...@a8g2000pbe.googlegroups.com...
Being closer to the Sun than the Earth once a month and further
from the Sun a fortnight later, Luna is definitely alone in its unique
orbit about the Sun.
anim8rFSK
Apr 12, 2012, 5:12:31 PM4/12/12
to
In article <8762d46...@spindle.srvr.nix>,
Remind me again which Norse God Saturn was?
Or Sun Day, or Moon Day ...
I'll give you Tyr, Wotan, Thor, and Fria ...
--
So we're all agreed that Clod is stupid?
Or Sun Day, or Moon Day ...
I'll give you Tyr, Wotan, Thor, and Fria ...
--
So we're all agreed that Clod is stupid?
Wayne Throop
Apr 12, 2012, 5:56:57 PM4/12/12
to
: "Androcles" <H...@Hgwrts.phscs.Apr.2012>
: Being closer to the Sun than the Earth once a month and further from
In the useless sense you seem to be using, *every* object is alone in its
orbit, since no orbit exactly recreates another, and even L[45] objects
oscilate around the center of those points, not precisely following the
track of the object they're in L[n] of, which itself is not following
a precise circle anyways.
Well. Anybody with two brain cells to rub together will figure out
a reasonable meaning for "orbit" and "alone", if they wish. If they
don't, they won't even if they had a quadrillion cells to rub together;
it's always possible to be willfully contrary and obtuse.
: Being closer to the Sun than the Earth once a month and further from
: the Sun a fortnight later, Luna is definitely alone in its unique
: orbit about the Sun.
Ah. So you use a completely useless definition for "alone" and "orbit".
: orbit about the Sun.
In the useless sense you seem to be using, *every* object is alone in its
orbit, since no orbit exactly recreates another, and even L[45] objects
oscilate around the center of those points, not precisely following the
track of the object they're in L[n] of, which itself is not following
a precise circle anyways.
Well. Anybody with two brain cells to rub together will figure out
a reasonable meaning for "orbit" and "alone", if they wish. If they
don't, they won't even if they had a quadrillion cells to rub together;
it's always possible to be willfully contrary and obtuse.
Wayne Throop
Apr 12, 2012, 6:04:27 PM4/12/12
to
:: The planets were (largely) named after Greco-Roman gods: the days of
: Remind me again which Norse God Saturn was?
:: the week were named after Norse ones.
: anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net>
: Remind me again which Norse God Saturn was?
:
: Or Sun Day, or Moon Day ...
Oh, you mean Diannaday and Apolloday?
: Or Sun Day, or Moon Day ...
David DeLaney
Apr 12, 2012, 6:49:43 PM4/12/12
to
David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>"Androcles" <H...@Hgwrts.phscs.Apr.2012> writes:
>> "Wayne Throop" <thr...@sheol.org> wrote in message
>"Androcles" <H...@Hgwrts.phscs.Apr.2012> writes:
>> "Wayne Throop" <thr...@sheol.org> wrote in message
>>>: "Androcles" <H...@Hgwrts.phscs.Apr.2012>
>>> : Yes, snipping fuckwit, your lame definition of a planet makes Luna a
>>> : planet, you fucking moron.
>>>
>>> Ignoring the reason you are wrong
>>
>> Luna orbits the sun, is roughly spherical due to self-gravitation, and is
>> alone in its orbit.
>
>This "alone" thing...I feel like you're overlooking something.
>Something fairly obvious. Something you're sitting on.
Nah, he's just dog-whistling that he's actually from a different planet.
>>> : Yes, snipping fuckwit, your lame definition of a planet makes Luna a
>>> : planet, you fucking moron.
>>>
>>> Ignoring the reason you are wrong
>>
>> Luna orbits the sun, is roughly spherical due to self-gravitation, and is
>> alone in its orbit.
>
>This "alone" thing...I feel like you're overlooking something.
>Something fairly obvious. Something you're sitting on.
Dave, he does not come in peace
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages