The Solar System now has 12 planets (and counting!)

[MichaeltheGreat]

BTW, my new Bino Vue and Naglers rock - I'm easily able to go ~360X with an 8" under typical near coastal urban seeing conditions, while still having good image brightness and decent contrast.

edit - fortuitous X-post. Was busy watching the Sox go back ahead of the Tiggers, and didn't realize you'd posted.

[MRT144]

this means fat people are planets now?

[reds4ever]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
BTW, my new Bino Vue and Naglers rock - I'm easily able to go ~360X with an 8" under typical near coastal urban seeing conditions, while still having good image brightness and decent contrast.

edit - fortuitous X-post. Was busy watching the Sox go back ahead of the Tiggers, and didn't realize you'd posted.

Very lucky!! What scope have you got MtG? You were always saving for that big Meade SCT.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Dauphin
Maybe I'm missing something, but does the new classification system do anything other than resolve the issue of the correct way to eat a boiled egg?

I was wondering something like that myself. From the way people talk, you'd think "planet" referred to an existing phenomenon, as opposed to being a fairly arbitrary label. Arguing about classification in taxonomy, for example, makes sense because the different species are related to each other by varying degrees, and their categorization says something about their nature and relationship. We have a fairly good idea what we mean by "bear" or "orchid," and have a sensible rationale for categorizing things under those labels. When an organism is reclassified, it's usually based on new genetic or other evidence.

Whereas this argument...the whole point of it is that we don't know what the point is. There's no new information contributing to the decision (e.g., how certain planets were formed, or their chemical makeup), just one group's assertion against another's about what a given word should mean. The winner will be whoever convinces the most people that his/her definition sounds sort of like it matches our vague mental sense of "planetness," or something. Kind of like a gigantic, pompous game of Balderdash.

[MichaeltheGreat]

For portability, I got an 8 inch LX200 GPS UHTC - got a good deal on it used.

I also got a smallish parcel of land in New Mexico, one easily accessible direct from San Diego - just go out interstate 8 till it merges with the 10. About 14 miles from the nearest town, ~5000 feet elevation, 330 plus clear days a year and low average humidity. Virtually no obstruction of the night sky.

I still want to go for the big gun, but have to find someplace where I feel like hanging around long enough to pier mount it.

[reds4ever]

An 8" SCT and a 16" Dob on a platform would make a nice combo? I've just got a 14" f 4.5...awesome deep sky views.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Elok
I was wondering something like that myself. From the way people talk, you'd think "planet" referred to an existing phenomenon, as opposed to being a fairly arbitrary label. Arguing about classification in taxonomy, for example, makes sense because the different species are related to each other by varying degrees, and their categorization says something about their nature and relationship. We have a fairly good idea what we mean by "bear" or "orchid," and have a sensible rationale for categorizing things under those labels. When an organism is reclassified, it's usually based on new genetic or other evidence.

Whereas this argument...the whole point of it is that we don't know what the point is. There's no new information contributing to the decision (e.g., how certain planets were formed, or their chemical makeup), just one group's assertion against another's about what a given word should mean. The winner will be whoever convinces the most people that his/her definition sounds sort of like it matches our vague mental sense of "planetness," or something. Kind of like a gigantic, pompous game of Balderdash.

Well, there's a definite point. It was no big deal when we couldn't see most of what's in this solar system, let alone identify anything else around any other star, but our detection abilities have increased to a point where there should be a rational basis for classifying objects. It may be somewhat arbitrary, but some definition is needed, since we really have none at this point.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by reds4ever
An 8" SCT and a 16" Dob on a platform would make a nice combo? I've just got a 14" f 4.5...awesome deep sky views.

I've got RCT lust now. Got to go for one of those 16 or 20 inch RCX400 monsters.

[reds4ever]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


I've got RCT lust now. Got to go for one of those 16 or 20 inch RCX400 monsters.

Save your money, they're for AstroPhoto crowd. A 40% central obstruction is a killer visually.

[Elok]

Oh, I'm not arguing against classification, just against the attitude that the word has any particular meaning to be defended as is. I'm suddenly flashing back to that episode of "Seinfeld" where Kramer and George's dad (I think it was George's dad) invent a bra for man-breasts and spend the whole show arguing over whether it should be called a "bro" or a "mansierre."

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by reds4ever



Save your money, they're for AstroPhoto crowd. A 40% central obstruction is a killer visually.

I'm looking at it as an astrophoto/remote observing platform. Nice for comet hunting surveys.

For deep space visual, I'm thinking ultimately something like a 20-25 inch truss-rod Newt. Fun little toy to build.

[Odin]

IMO a planet is any substellar object directly orbiting a star or free brown dwarf that has enough mass to have a spherical shape.

Major planets are planets that have a least the diameter of Mercury

Minor planets are planets with a smaller diameter then Mercury

A brown dwarfs orbiting a star is a planet, but a brown dwarf orbiting a larger brown dwarf is not a planet.

A terrestrial-mass object orbiting a Planemo is a planet.

A Double-planet is when the center of gravity of the two co-bodies is outside either body (so Earth and Luna are a major planet and satelite while Pluto-Charon is a minor double-planet.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
There are likely billions of former planets in our galaxy which were gravitationally ejected from the stars they formed around, including a few from this solar system.

To be exact the asteroid belt is in fact the remains of a former planet who was located in a gravitationally unstable area and was ripped apart by the gravitational forces of the neighboring bodies.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Oerdin


To be exact the asteroid belt is in fact the remains of a former planet who was located in a gravitationally unstable area and was ripped apart by the gravitational forces of the neighboring bodies.

Has that been established? I thought there was that and/or an alternative explanation that a planet never formed due to gravitational forces interfering with the accretion of a planetary mass.

[reds4ever]

That the planet never formed is currently the model in vogue.