Pluto, The 9th Planet, again ?

[moi621 (imported)]

When the metric system was introduced in France in 1795 . . . Decimal time of day had been introduced in France two years earlier

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_time

Viva La France!

http://www.minkukel.com/en/time/metric_clock.htm

http://compare.ebay.com/like/2610223853 ... si=y&cbt=y

I don't like the 24 hour clock either.

Give me the FREEDOM of AM/PM 12's.

Moi

[moi621 (imported)]

But if we did take that asteroid in as a Planet, that knocked Pluto out of Planethood;

That would make Pluto a nice Metric, 10th Planet.

Ta-Da!

[Riverwind (imported)]

When the metric system was introduced in France in 1795 . . . Decimal time of day had been introduced in France two years earlier

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_time

Viva La France!

http://www.minkukel.com/en/time/metric_clock.htm

http://compare.ebay.com/like/2610223853 ... si=y&cbt=y

I don't like the 24 hour clock either.

Give me the FREEDOM of AM/PM 12's.

Moi

So I am going to guess you would not like my 12 hour binary clock.

River

[Riverwind (imported)]

Some day they will go back and take another look and add several planets would be my guess, 4 at least because we love a base 12 system.

1, 3, 4, 7, 12, 48, combinations of 12. its a popular number. Biblical even.

Think about it, (4) inter planets, (4) gas giants, (4) small planets from the kuiper's belt. 12 moi, 12 is the number.

River

[A-1 (imported)]

Sorry for leaving out base-10. "107 157 144" in octal is "71 111 100" in base-10. Only, now we have the "quadity" or "quadrinity" instead of the "trinity"?

Careful, now, surely you would not seek to get me to put a hexadecimal on you? Isn't hexadecimal the math sometimes used by evil spirits, such as computer programmers?

Wouldn't that take a "BRAZZILIAN" numbers, or did that do out with the DUBYA administration?

[Riverwind (imported)]

You know as I remember one of the colleges has a model of the sun and the planets, its all in relationship to where and how far they would be, as I remember the Sun was like 12' in diameter, then the 4 small inter planets, then the gas giants, the last two I believe were out side in the court, and Pluto was down the street about a block, its not like its near. And all are adjusted for size in relationship to the sun, so here is this marble over a block away fixed to a sign, big sign otherwise you would miss it.

River

[Cainanite (imported)]

I've always rather considered the idea that ALL objects that orbit a sun are considered "planets". If it is an independent orbital body, then it is a planet regardless of its size.

Be it the size of a pea, or the size of Jupiter, it is a planet.

If a smaller object is caught in the gravitation of a larger object, that is not the sun, then that object is a moon of the larger object (its planet).

All satellites that orbit planets are moons, all satellites that orbit stars are planets. This is the truth of what we see when we look at Newtonian Physics, and Einstein's Gravitational models. The only difference is in scale.

When the scientific community feels the need to assign the arbitrary boundaries of what constitutes a planet and what does not, they are doing so out of a need to measure gravitational forces on the structure of our solar system. They do so from a need to plot escape velocities, the paths of interplanetary probes, and possibly future missions within and beyond our local neighborhood. Think of each planet as an exit ramp on a freeway. Each one can lead somewhere different, or help you get where you need to go. You propel yourself and the objects you send by acceleration toward a gravitational body, alter course by flinging around a gravitational body. Speed up, slow down, and navigate, all by gravitational forces.

Small objects like Pluto, and the asteroids large or small, have a negligible effect on such plotting and navigation. Larger objects like Neptune, Uranus, Saturn, have a much more profound effect. They are useful to science.

Therefore we need to decide which of the objects we observe are usefully taught as planets, and which are not. Sure, everything in our solar system is technically a planet in the broadest sense, but it is not useful. Science is about what knowledge is useful, not what is convenient.

The real issue is that we need a new word. We need a word that differentiates between a planet with sufficient gravitation, and a planetary object that is just a point in space. Maybe we need to add a word like "Greater" to the term.

Therefore, Pluto is a planet, in the same way the asteroids are planets. There are only eight Greater Planets, that we know about. It is a distinction we have to recognize for future generations to make use of.

[Paolo]

What do you think about Ceres, the "big ass" asteroid, that is now considered a dwarf planet with a thin atmosphere? I have a hard time swallowing it. Pun intended, since it looks like a large potato.

Personally, I think the 'roid belt is what's left of a planet, not a dwarf- or planetoid, that bumped into something rather hard.

[gareth19 (imported)]

We like to think the universe is more organized than it is: ... that mammals are clearly defined; that plants and animals comprise all that lives; etc. Nature is not so yielding to our neat taxonomies. Along comes a Pluto or a duck-billed platypus ... and we scramble to determine which (totally arbitrary) category we are to put them in. Who decreed that the categories we've invented are ones nature is obligated to recognize?

Sandi

It is our obligation to define our categories clearly. There is nothing ambiguous or problematic about platypodes. They, like all mammals, have a single dentary bone in the jaw in place of the seven of the original amniote jaw. Moreover the jaw works through a dentary-squamosal joint rather than the quadrate-articular joint of the non-mammals. Rather than a single ossicle, the stapes, of non-mammals, platypodes like other mammals possess three ossicles, the stapes, the incus, and the malleus, the latter, developed from the angular and quadrate bones of the non-mammals. Unlike other mammals, the platypus does not have nipples, but it does produce milk. The genital and excretory organs open into a single vent, the cloaca of birds, and "reptiles." Hence we place them and echidnas in a order Monotremata of the subclass Protheria. The subclass, Theria, in which the genital and anal orifices are separate, is divided (ignoring some extinct lines) into the infraclasses Marsupialia, and Eutheria. The Eutheria are characterized by the presence of a placenta, missing in both Marsupialia and Monotremata. Despite their laying eggs, platypodes (and echidnas) also possess a fully developed palate and a four-chambered heart, features which are not found in "reptiles." No competent investigator looking at the anatomy of a platypus could imagine that it was anything but a mammal.

[gareth19 (imported)]

What do you think about Ceres, the "big ass" asteroid, that is now considered a dwarf planet with a thin atmosphere? I have a hard time swallowing it. Pun intended, since it looks like a large potato.

Personally, I think the 'roid belt is what's left of a planet, not a dwarf- or planetoid, that bumped into something rather hard.

No, the gravitational forces of Jupiter are such that no planet would have formed between Mars and Jupiter. Though the exploded planet is a staple of early science-fiction (like from the 50s, but even Asimov has Trantor in the center of the galaxy!!! so that's more fiction than science), it is impossible for one to have formed. If you want collisions, look at Uranus. The axis of rotation is 98 degrees, that is to say, its North Pole has been pushed past the equator! Miranda looks like a giant jigsaw puzzle put back together. There you have evidence of an horrendous collision, but between the Sun and Jupiter anything big enough to take out an entire planet (and btw if you put all of the asteroids into one lump, and doubled it, it would still be smaller than the moon) would have disrupted Mars as well. Remember, the Earth was struck by a body the size of Mars and survived, leaving the Moon as a fragment of that body. There's no way a collision would produce all the miniscule fragments between Mars and Jupiter. They are just that, the dustballs of the Solar system, stray rubbish that hasn't been swept up yet.