Welcome to PatsFans.com

12 Planets..?!?

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by QuiGon, Aug 16, 2006.

  1. QuiGon

    QuiGon Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    6,123
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Forget all your petty squabbling about politics, and be aware of some really important news... It looks like the powers-that-be are going to officially declare there are 12 planets in the Solar System. Crazy, huh..? This includes one new planet on our side of Jupiter.

    I don't know if I'll be able to get used to it... MVEMCJSUNPCX...
  2. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    40,315
    Likes Received:
    19
    Ratings:
    +19 / 0 / -0

    All the science I don't understand, it's just my job 5 days a week.
  3. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    <Harry Boy>Sounds like the Democrats' doing. Noooo, they couldn't be satisfied with the 9 planets we already have. I bet they felt the other 3 were "discriminated" against, the ACLU would have filed a lawsuit. Personally, I don't see why we need planets anyway. The Lord created the HEAVENS AND THE EARTH... what have the other planets ever done for me?</Harry Boy>
  4. QuiGon

    QuiGon Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    6,123
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    They should have just said that in order to be a planet, an object has to be at least the size and mass of Mercury (which barely manages to sustain something that could be considered an atmosphere). Throw Pluto a bone and allow it to be grandfathered in.

    As the Globe article points out, they are now opening the door for 50-100 other objects out there to be considered planets.
  5. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    37,506
    Likes Received:
    24
    Ratings:
    +29 / 0 / -5

    Bush created it, it's for "Looney Liberal Democrats", we are going to sedate them and then "Shoot Em Up"

    "Mommy"
    "Yes dear"
    "Where's that nasty man that told me to take the flag off my bike"
    "He won't be around anymore dear, we sent him "up"
    "Oh good mommy, can I sing God Bless America outdoors again"?
    "Yes dear, any time you want"

    :singing: "God Bless America"
  6. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    But now you're limiting the definition of a planet to our solar system (I'm not trying to be argumentative; I like science). What if we discover a star where all the "planets" are smaller than mercury? The scientific method also doesn't allow stuff to be grandfathered in - either something is meets certain criteria and is classified one way, or it doesn't and is classified another. Of course, I don't know how I would define a planet.
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 23, 2005
  7. QuiGon

    QuiGon Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    6,123
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Then those wouldn't be planets. The panel decided that in order to be a planet, an object must have enough mass to collapse upon itself into a "roughly spherical shape". I think it would make more sense to say that the object has to have enough mass to have some semblance of an atmosphere. This new standard raises more questions than it answers.
    I have no problem with allowing for something to be grandfathered in. Any serious scientist is going to know that Pluto only got included in the planet-club due to tradition and not because it fits the definition. This whole mess came about mostly due to Pluto, but why would it be such a big deal to allow for one exception due to tradition..? Or they could just cut Pluto off entirely and say we have 8 planets.
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2006
  8. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    What do you mean by "have at atmosphere"? Any object that has gravity (so any object with mass) has *some* atmosphere. Pluto has an atmosphere of nitrogen and methane at 0.30 pascals of pressure. Mars has an atmosphere of 0.7-0.9 kPa. Where would you put the cutoff?
  9. QuiGon

    QuiGon Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    6,123
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    With all due respect, give me a break. If you are going to say that some asteroid 50 feet in diameter "has mass, therefore it has *some* atmosphere" then I just can't debate with that line of reasoning. No offense, but the statement is too ridiculous to even address.

    Why do I have the feeling someone's been doing some Wikipedia-ing...?
  10. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    No, I actually memorize atmospheric pressures of other planets ;)

    Of course I looked it up, but seriously, how would you define an "atmosphere". There isn't a clear line... some bodies have more, some have less. You need an objective delineation if you're going to use it as a standard.
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2006
  11. QuiGon

    QuiGon Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    6,123
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Then how about we look to your very own source (Wikipedia) to see what it says..?

    "Atmosphere is the general name for a layer of gases that may surround a material body of sufficient mass."

    So let's see... right away we may deduce that not every item that has mass has an atmosphere. I don't have the atmospheric pressures of every object in the Solar System memorized so I couldn't just come up with some point of delineation, but I think it is safe to assume that there does exist a scientific standard for what does and doesn't constitute an "atmosphere".
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 23, 2005
  12. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    I disagree - there is currently no scientific standard for what does and doesn't constitute an atmosphere. Of course there is also currently no scientific standard for what does and doesn't constitute a planet. You could come up with a standard for either, but it would require picking a cut-off somewhat arbitrarily (science does this all the time so that in itself wouldn't be a problem), but I hope you can see that there's isn't an "obvious" answer, else they would have used it already.
  13. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ---- JAG ----- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    36,493
    Likes Received:
    18
    Ratings:
    +25 / 1 / -0

    #87 Jersey

    I think they are adding: NemUpiter as a planet....and there's life on it...all women created for the sole purpose of voting democrat in the next election and catering to men.
  14. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,671
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    I had this guy from Jupiter on tha job the other day. He was really short, wide and everything he stepped on got crushed. He also had a spoace suit on because he said he preferred Hydrogen and Methane to our candy-arse mix of Nitrogen and O2. What a dork! He was mouthing off about how Earth isn't a real planet because we have no atmosphere. I fired him because he kept shorting out all the power chords with his stupid "magnetic field". Plus, he couldn't do stud frame layout or make a straight cut.
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2006
  15. gomezcat

    gomezcat It's SIR Moderator to you Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    3,551
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    It's really crazy. I am no astronomer but how the heck can people miss these things?
  16. Real World

    Real World Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,289
    Likes Received:
    24
    Ratings:
    +26 / 0 / -1

    You sure he was from Jupiter? Sounds like he may have been from Ur-anus.

    :singing:


    hehehe...j/k man, I just couldn't resist wista!
  17. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,742
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    No astronomer ever 'spotted' Pluto by just looking around up there. A bunch of Scientists/Mathematicians who were entirely too good at Calculus to be human figured out that several different planets' orbits weren't what they were supposed to be. That there had to be some sort unidentified object pulling on them just a little.

    After filling probably 30 or more notebooks with calculations they determined that Pluto had to exist and where it had to be and then the Astronomers looked for it and found it.
  18. gomezcat

    gomezcat It's SIR Moderator to you Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    3,551
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    Ah, I see. Thanks. I had visions of guys with telescopes, saying "oh, there's another one". :D
  19. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    37,506
    Likes Received:
    24
    Ratings:
    +29 / 0 / -5

    Who gives a sh!t
    :bricks:
  20. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,742
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    Let me take a guess...


    Anyone who bothers to post in this thread?

Share This Page