so why not send a probe around the sun to the otherside and have a look
so why not send a probe around the sun to the otherside and have a look
I don't know if you've heard this, but space is rather big.
so why not send a probe around the sun to the otherside and have a lookerm...
Please refer to this hypothetical world with the traditional term used for suspected but undiscovered planets, which is Planet X (with X referring to the unknown, not to the number 10). If this object exists, it is NOT the solar system's ninth planet. Pluto's downgrade remains a matter of controversy and debate and should be not be depicted as fact, as many scientists prefer a geophysical planet definition that includes all worlds large enough to be rounded by their own gravity. With this definition, the solar system already has more than nine planets, as dwarf planets are planets too. They are a subclass of planets. That means we have a minimum of 13 planets already, so this one would at minimum be Planet 14.
Please refer to this hypothetical world with the traditional term used for suspected but undiscovered planets, which is Planet X (with X referring to the unknown, not to the number 10). If this object exists, it is NOT the solar system's ninth planet. Pluto's downgrade remains a matter of controversy and debate and should be not be depicted as fact, as many scientists prefer a geophysical planet definition that includes all worlds large enough to be rounded by their own gravity. With this definition, the solar system already has more than nine planets, as dwarf planets are planets too. They are a subclass of planets. That means we have a minimum of 13 planets already, so this one would at minimum be Planet 14.
Nope, The IAU has made their decision and they have indicated it will not be revisited. AS it stands, there are 8 planets with a possible 9th. Your agreement is not necessary.
There is no Planet 9. Its just sign of incomplete GRT.
Yes. We all have. Every year or so.There is no Planet 9. Its just sign of incomplete GRT.
have you been to the other side of the sun ?
Sure but what's going on opposite from us on the other side of the sun while we are orbiting around the sun. don't answer as i know you knew this is what i meant.
Science is not decided by decree of "authority." That is dogma. Planetary scientists do not need the permission of the IAU to define the term planet,
Science is not decided by decree of "authority." That is dogma. Planetary scientists do not need the permission of the IAU to define the term planet,
Erm...I'm not aware if you know this, but setting a definition is not 'science'. That's just setting a label.
What you're railing against isn't science but the setting of a name by a consensus body for convenience' sake, so that when people write papers they talk about the same thing.
You're basically getting your panties in a bunch over something on the level of:
"They shouldn't have renamed Coke to Coke Classic!"
Pluto is still there. It's still doing the same thing it was doing before. Science is still *exactly* the same as it was before. Get over it.
Proper definitions are important to science.
@antialias_physorg There is no consensus among planetary scientists that the IAU has the right to set such definitions, just as there is no consensus among planetary scientists in favor of their definition. Plenty of planetary scientists refer to Pluto and other dwarf planets as planets in their scientific papers. The question is not whether Pluto is still out there but the need to recognize that more than one definition is currently in use and that the IAU definition, which has caused much public confusion, does not have to be accepted as anything more than one view in an ongoing debate. And sorry, but "getting over it" is not an option, and I refuse to do that.
So if I were to say that the earth is a flat object around which the sun,moon and the other planets revolve, it would be okay with you as long as it were consistent?
Where the IAU messed up was when they voted that a dwarf planet is not a planet but is a distinct category. That is classification, not defining terms. In zoology, for comparison, scientists define terms by naming types, but it is forbidden for the naming committee to declare which species belong to which types and whether one type is a subcategory of another type. They defiantly state that each and every working scientist has the right to argue for any classification they think is right based on the ever-evolving science. To have a body VOTE for a classification scheme would be to shut down the very heart and soul of science. The IAU did a very serious no-no when they dipped into classification by authoritarian, majority decree. That is not how science works. It is anti-science. As for me (a professional planetary scientist), dwarf planets are a subcategory of planets, just like gas giant planets are a subcategory of planet.
So if I were to say that the earth is a flat object around which the sun,moon and the other planets revolve, it would be okay with you as long as it were consistent?
So if I were to say that the earth is a flat object around which the sun,moon and the other planets revolve, it would be okay with you as long as it were consistent?
Sure but what's going on opposite from us on the other side of the sun while we are orbiting around the sun. don't answer as i know you knew this is what i meant.
1) Planets at different distances have different orbital periods. It is not possible for a plent to always be exactly opposite Earth (especially not Planet 9 which, by all calculations, is pretty far away from the sun - so would have an orbital period, far, far longer than that of Earth)
2) Even if a planet were to share an orbit exactly with Earth it would not stay directly 'opposite' the sun at all times, because orbital speed varies with distance (Earth is not in a circular orbit but an elliptical one - **
If we redefine "flat" as "spherical" and "sun" as "earth"
and "earth" as "sun" your statement would be true.
Where the IAU messed up was when they voted that a dwarf planet is not a planet but is a distinct category. That is classification, not defining terms.
Your opinion is not relevant.
If we redefine "flat" as "spherical" and "sun" as "earth"
and "earth" as "sun" your statement would be true.
I think Richard Reynman really nailed the difference between science and label when he said:
"If you memorize all the names of all the birds in the world - you still don't know anything about birds"
Where the IAU messed up was when they voted that a dwarf planet is not a planet but is a distinct category. That is classification, not defining terms.
Your opinion is not relevant.
That's not going to make the boogeyman under your bed go away. Pluto is still a planet to a lot of astronomers and this opinion is still quite relevant.
If we redefine "flat" as "spherical" and "sun" as "earth"
and "earth" as "sun" your statement would be true.
I think Richard Reynman really nailed the difference between science and label when he said:
"If you memorize all the names of all the birds in the world - you still don't know anything about birds"
And you don't need to know all the names of every planet orbiting the Sun and every known planet orbiting other stars. You just need to know what a planet is. The planetary scientists have that covered.
The IAU is the body charged with officially assigning designations. I don't see why some find this so hard to understand. Any person can call any object anything they want. If you are writing a scientific paper, and want to be understood, you have to use the nomenclature assigned by the IAU.
Also, the IAU failed to follow its own rules when it adopted the definition of a planet. The working rules state that the text of resolutions should be made available before the meeting for adequate review by the relevant community. This text was created "on the fly" and was approved without consensus of the planetary scientists. Further, no prior IAU definition was ever adopted as "resolved". All prior definitions were "recommended". The 2006 GA went on a wild, unprecedented tangent when it broke the IAU processes and then "resolved" a definition. It's no wonder so many planetary scientists are angry and reject it.
Where the IAU messed up was when they voted that a dwarf planet is not a planet but is a distinct category. That is classification, not defining terms.
Your opinion is not relevant.
That's not going to make the boogeyman under your bed go away. Pluto is still a planet to a lot of astronomers and this opinion is still quite relevant.
No, actually it is not. The IAU is the body charged with officially assigning designations. I don't see why some find this so hard to understand. Any person can call any object anything they want. If you are writing a scientific paper, and want to be understood, you have to use the nomenclature assigned by the IAU.
Maybe you should re-read aa's comments about labels.
However, the smaller semi-major axis would permit this body to influence Kuiper Belt Objects, sometimes casting them into 3: 2 Resonate sun grazing orbits. Then they would break up forming comet swarms. Some fragments from these swarms could hit Earth causing Ice Ages. Thus climate data from ice cores and tree rings would offer a way to compute this body's orbital period. Using this and other data, the orbital period was found to be 4969.3 years vs. the therotical 4969.0 year value.
Also, the IAU failed to follow its own rules when it adopted the definition of a planet. The working rules state that the text of resolutions should be made available before the meeting for adequate review by the relevant community. This text was created "on the fly" and was approved without consensus of the planetary scientists. Further, no prior IAU definition was ever adopted as "resolved". All prior definitions were "recommended". The 2006 GA went on a wild, unprecedented tangent when it broke the IAU processes and then "resolved" a definition. It's no wonder so many planetary scientists are angry and reject it.
The tricksy astronomerses! They stole our Precious they did! But we won't let the thieveses get away with it!
Notice that our Vulcan has one of the two possible orbital inclinations proposed for Planet Nine and its semi major axis is very close to the range proposed by the Marcos brothers:
VULCAN REVEALED
VULCAN'S ORBITAL PARAMETERS FROM BLAVATSKY'S THEOSOPHY
The U. Of AZ astronomers estimating that Planet Nine's orbital inclination could be near 18 deg. or 48 deg and Vulcan's 48.44 deg suggests that they are one and the same body.
The Spanish astronomers suggesting that Planet Nine's semi major axis in the 300 to 400 AU range re-enforces the suspicion that both it and Vulcan (semi major axis 291.2 AU) both belong to one and the same body.
so why not send a probe around the sun to the otherside and have a lookerm...
or just wait till March?
Please refer to this hypothetical world with the traditional term used for suspected but undiscovered planets, which is Planet X (with X referring to the unknown, not to the number 10). If this object exists, it is NOT the solar system's ninth planet. Pluto's downgrade remains a matter of controversy and debate and should be not be depicted as fact, as many scientists prefer a geophysical planet definition that includes all worlds large enough to be rounded by their own gravity. With this definition, the solar system already has more than nine planets, as dwarf planets are planets too. They are a subclass of planets. That means we have a minimum of 13 planets already, so this one would at minimum be Planet 14.
No, I do not have to accept the decision of the IAU, especially when leading planetary scientists such as Alan Stern continue to reject that decision.
"Planet 9" IS in fact, Pluto. It really comes down to common usage and many of us, regular folks, Planetary scientists and Amateur Astronomers will NOT relent! Sick and tired of those who have declared themselves "Masters of The Universe" giving them the "Right" to redefine everything!
To take this one step further,.
maholmes1
Sep 14, 2017Also, no other object as big as Pluto (1471 miles in diameter) or the very slightly smaller Eris (1445 miles in diameter) has yet been discovered in the Kuiper Belt. They're both bigger than the next largest object that is geophysically a planet, Makemake (approximately 890 miles in diameter), by far.