|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Moochie Cricket
Fatal Absolution
Negative-Feedback
1
   |
Posted - 2015.07.16 22:01:00 -
[1] - Quote
Sequal's Back wrote:Songs of Seraphim wrote:Sequal's Back wrote:http://m.imgur.com/gallery/7C2GfIF   Did you see all the variations of it? ._. Hahaha some of them, don't think it's even possible to know ALL of them! I agree with you Ark, it's a PLANET!!!
Is Pluto a planet? Let's find out.
1.) Is it in orbit around the sun?
Yes
2.) Is its mass large enough to pull itself into a spherical shape?
Yes
3.) Has it cleared the neighborhood of its orbit?
No
Therefore Pluto is not a planet.
Caldari Tribute Montage
|
Moochie Cricket
Fatal Absolution
Negative-Feedback
1
|
Posted - 2015.07.16 22:53:00 -
[2] - Quote
Sequal's Back wrote:Moochie Cricket wrote:Sequal's Back wrote:Songs of Seraphim wrote:Sequal's Back wrote:http://m.imgur.com/gallery/7C2GfIF Did you see all the variations of it? ._. Hahaha some of them, don't think it's even possible to know ALL of them! I agree with you Ark, it's a PLANET!!! Is Pluto a planet? Let's find out. 1.) Is it in orbit around the sun? Yes 2.) Is its mass large enough to pull itself into a spherical shape? Yes 3.) Has it cleared the neighborhood of its orbit? No Therefore Pluto is not a planet. Damn you and your questions!!!! IT'S A PLANET!
If Pluto is a planet by your definition, then there are hundreds more "planets" in our solar system.
Caldari Tribute Montage
|
Moochie Cricket
Fatal Absolution
Negative-Feedback
1
|
Posted - 2015.07.16 23:11:00 -
[3] - Quote
Arkena Wyrnspire wrote:The whole idea of a planet not being a planet because there are other planets near it is completely absurd. "We're going to call it a cow, except when it's in a herd." A river is a river, independent of whether there are other rivers nearby. In science, we call things what they are based on their attributes, not what they're next to. Moochie Cricket wrote:
If Pluto is a planet by your definition, then there are hundreds more "planets" in our solar system.
No, there aren't. The only objects similar to Pluto in size are Eris, Sedna, and Ceres. With the new measurements from the New Horizons probe it has been shown that Pluto is the largest of these.
In 1992, 1992 QB1 was discovered, the first Kuiper belt object (KBO) since Pluto.[7] Since its discovery, the number of known KBOs has increased to over a thousand, and more than 100,000 KBOs over 100 km (62 mi) in diameter are believed to exist.[8]
Straight from Wikipedia and all cited.
Caldari Tribute Montage
|
Moochie Cricket
Fatal Absolution
Negative-Feedback
1
|
Posted - 2015.07.17 11:51:00 -
[4] - Quote
Arkena Wyrnspire wrote:Moochie Cricket wrote:Arkena Wyrnspire wrote:The whole idea of a planet not being a planet because there are other planets near it is completely absurd. "We're going to call it a cow, except when it's in a herd." A river is a river, independent of whether there are other rivers nearby. In science, we call things what they are based on their attributes, not what they're next to. Moochie Cricket wrote:
If Pluto is a planet by your definition, then there are hundreds more "planets" in our solar system.
No, there aren't. The only objects similar to Pluto in size are Eris, Sedna, and Ceres. With the new measurements from the New Horizons probe it has been shown that Pluto is the largest of these. In 1992, 1992 QB1 was discovered, the first Kuiper belt object (KBO) since Pluto.[7] Since its discovery, the number of known KBOs has increased to over a thousand, and more than 100,000 KBOs over 100 km (62 mi) in diameter are believed to exist.[8] Straight from Wikipedia and all cited. 100,000 over 100km in diameter, yes. Nobody is arguing that those are planets. Pluto is nearly 2400km in diameter. No other KBOs are that size, and only a couple are anywhere near.
And Mercury is over twice the diameter Pluto. What I am getting at is the line needs to be drawn somewhere, and the IAU definition is one that definitively draws the line.
Caldari Tribute Montage
|
|
|
| |
|