Wow...

[GT Pro]

Talking about discussion over whether Pluto is really 'qualified' as a planet, I managed to read upon many an information on this and have learned a few things.Many astronomers now say Pluto is a Kuiper Belt Object and should never have been called a planet in the first place.
A new view on these extrasolar close-to-the-size-of-Pluto-should-be-called-a-planet planets is just to simply classify them as 'Dwarf Planets'. Seems Pluto and Sedna aren't respected much anymore.

Story: (Feb.)

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060201_tenth_planet.html

 

[Famine]

So whats a 11D M-Theory or Brane theory?

BTW thanks for your info so far famine, very interesting read 👍

M-theory is a model of the formation/existence of the universe. The theory is that in 11-dimensional space (dimensions 1, 2, 3 and 4 are length, breadth, height and time - it's hard to conceive of the others, because we can't detect them or see their results) there exist a number of membranes - or "branes" - which coexist. If they collide with sufficient force, they can form membrane bubbles, known as p-branes, or universes.

A side-effect of M-theory is that universes are enclosed, but that certain particles (and at this level particles aren't considered to be the blobs that you see in textbooks, but strings - M-theory is, after all, the unification of string theory) aren't restricted to individual universes. One of these is the graviton - the "particle", yet to be discovered, responsible for gravity (the theory being that mass emits gravitons, and gravitons strike other masses, but because they have a spin of 2, instead of exerting a force proportional to their speed away from their origin, they exert a force proportional to ther speed towards their origin, resulting in an attraction) - which exactly explains why gravity is both the weakest force in our universe and so much weaker than quantum mechanics predicts it to be (the particles cross between universes, so may leech out and not give a true indication of the strength of the force.


Aaaaand breathe.

 

[Kesmai]

http://www.rense.com/general72/size.htm

That is just crazy

I always love comparisments like this when talking about how big space or its contents is.

that was so cool. thanks for sharing.

 

[Omnis]

One of these is the graviton - the "particle", yet to be discovered, responsible for gravity (the theory being that mass emits gravitons, and gravitons strike other masses, but because they have a spin of 2, instead of exerting a force proportional to their speed away from their origin, they exert a force proportional to ther speed towards their origin, resulting in an attraction) - which exactly explains why gravity is both the weakest force in our universe and so much weaker than quantum mechanics predicts it to be (the particles cross between universes, so may leech out and not give a true indication of the strength of the force.


Aaaaand breathe.

So a saving throw of 3 or higher equals weightlessness? Sweet!

 

[GT Pro]

[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]Getting too confusing? Well a new classification has been called and nine suddenly becomes 12. -


-Nine Planets Become 12 with Controversial New Definition
[/FONT][FONT=arial,helvetica][/FONT]
The tally of planets in our solar system would jump instantly to a dozen under a highly controversial new definition proposed by the International Astronomical Union (IAU).
Eventually there would be hundreds as more round objects are found beyond Neptune.
The proposal, which sources tell SPACE.com is gaining broad support, tries to plug a big gap in astronomy textbooks, which have never had a definition for the word "planet." It addresses discoveries of Pluto-sized worlds that have in recent years pitched astronomers into heated debates over terminology.

• 
  [*]The asteroid Ceres, which is round, would be recast as a dwarf planet in the new scheme.

• 
  [*]Pluto would remain a planet and its moon Charon would be reclassified as a planet. Both would be called "plutons," however, to distinguish them from the eight "classical" planets.

• 
  [*]A far-out Pluto-sized object known as 2003 UB313 would also be called a pluton.

That would make Caltech researcher Mike Brown, who found 2003 UB313, formally the discoverer of the 12th planet. But he thinks it's a lousy idea.
"It's flattering to be considered discoverer of the 12th planet," Brown said in a telephone interview. He applauded the committee's efforts but said the overall proposal is "a complete mess." By his count, the definition means there are already 53 known planets in our solar system with countless more to be discovered.
Brown and other another expert said the proposal, to be put forth Wednesday at the IAU General Assembly meeting in Prague, is not logical. For example, Brown said, it does not make sense to consider Ceres and Charon planets and not call our Moon (which is bigger than both) a planet.
IAU members will vote on the proposal Thursday, Aug. 24. Its fate is far from clear.
Q&A on the Proposal / Gallery: The 12 "Planets" / Read the Draft Resolution
The definition
The definition, which basically says round objects orbiting stars will be called planets, is simple at first glance:
"A planet is a celestial body that (a) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (b) is in orbit around a star, and is neither a star nor a satellite of a planet."
"Our goal was to find a scientific basis for a new definition of planet and we chose gravity as the determining factor," said Richard Binzel, an MIT planetary scientist who was part of a seven-member IAU committee that hashed out the proposal. "Nature decides whether or not an object is a planet."
"I think they did the right thing," said Alan Stern, a planetary scientist at the Southwest Research Institute and leader of NASA's New Horizons robotic mission to Pluto. Stern expects a consensus to form around the proposal.
"They chose a nice economical definition that a lot of us wanted to see," Stern told SPACE.com. "A lot of the other definitions had big problems. This is the only one that doesn't have big problems."
“I feel that they have made the most rational and scientific choices; namely ones which are physically based and can be most readily verified by observations,” said Gibor Basri, an astronomy professor at the University of California, Berkeley. Basri made a similar proposal to the IAU in 2003, part of the long-running saga of failed attempts to define "planet."
Expect heated discussion
But the IAU draft resolution explaining the definition is more complex [Read the Draft Resolution], with caveats and suggestions and surprises that some astronomers think render the entire proposal unworkable.
In particular, this aspect was criticized: A pair of round objects that orbit around a point in space that is outside both objects—meaning the center of gravity (or barycenter) is between the two planets in space as with Pluto and Charon—would be called double planets. Alan Boss, a planet-formation theorist at the Carnegie Institution of Washington, called the deliniation arbitrary.
Brown said there will likely be other similar pairings discovered, and it's even possible a "triple planet" would be found given this definition.
In response to the criticism, Binzel said it was important to distinguish between planets and satellites. He noted that barycenters are used to define and describe double stars and so the concept should apply to planets, too.
"The planet and satellite definition must be universally applicable, to all solar systems, not just our own," Binzel said by email from Prague. "For example: Picture a pair of Jupiters discovered in another solar system. Would one of these Jupiters be a planet, and the other a satellite? The barycenter criterion means that a pair of Jupiters would be a double planet."
Other astronomers saw other problems.
"It looks to me like a definition that was written by a committee of lawyers, not a committee of scientists," Boss said. "I think these criteria are as arbitrary as any other you might come up with."
Asteroid Ceres, since it is round, would be considered a planet. Interestingly, Ceres was called a planet when first discovered in 1801, then reclassified. It is just 578 miles in diameter, compared to 1,430 for Pluto and 7,926 for Earth.
And if astronomers determine that asteroids Pallas, Vesta, and Hygeia are also round, "they will also have to be considered planets," said Owen Gingerich, an historian and astronomer emeritus at Harvard who led the committee. The IAU proposal suggests (but does not require) that these be called dwarf planets. Pluto could also be considered a dwarf, which the IAU recommends as an informal label.
So to recap: Pluto would be a planet and a pluton and also a dwarf.
Boss was bothered by the lack of definitiveness on this and other points.
Boss, along with Stern, was on an IAU committee of astronomers that failed to agree on a definition. After a year, the IAU disbanded that committee and formed the new one, which included the author Dava Sobel in an effort to bring new ideas to the process.
Boss called their proposal "creative" and "detailed" but said it does not hang together as a cohesive argument.
"I'm sure this will engender a lot of heated discussion," Boss said by telephone prior to departing for the Czech Republic to cast his ballot. "This is what everyone will be talking about in the coffee shops of Prague for the next few days."
Tally would soar
Given all the nuances in the definition, a dozen other objects would be put on an IAU list of "candidate planets" which, upon further study, might bring the tally of planets in our solar system to 24.
Eventually the inventory of planets would soar.
Stern, the New Horizons mission leader, said there could be "hundreds and maybe a thousand" objects in our solar system that are at least as big as Pluto. That's fine with him. "This is what we do as scientists. You discover new things, you adapt to new facts."
Brown, the discoverer of the potential 12th planet, said the basic definition is fine, but "the resolution itself is a complete mess."
The resolution calls for a new IAU committee that would evaluate other candidate planets. Normally, that's a process that takes place in a scientific journal, Brown said. He called the notion of an IAU gatekeeper "bizarre" and "really a bad idea. The IAU should make a definition, then it's up to scientists to go about their business" of deciding what objects fit the definition.
Binzel defended the approach: "The IAU has existing committees that can do this—it is what the IAU
does. Someone has to officially bestow names, etc. It is just the way the system works." He added that quality papers published in science journals should and would continue to be part of the process of determining planet status.
Nobody can yet say how the vote will go.
"You're only left with a 'yes' or 'no' vote," Brown said. "And a 'yes' vote makes things ridiculous. A 'no' vote puts us back where we were."
Brown worries, however, that the vast majority of astronomers at the IAU meeting work in other fields, outside planetary science. "They are likely vote 'yes' because they're not familiar with the issue and, mostly, because they're sick of the topic," he said. - Space.com

 

[Touring Mars]

http://www.rense.com/general72/size.htm

That is just crazy

I always love comparisments like this when talking about how big space or its contents is.

Cool find, S_F.... if you care to look at the larger structure of the universe, you'll find this sort of 'fractal' effect at work... it's quite mind-blowing, esp. if you can get your hands on a telescope and actually look at these things with your own eyes... it's also pretty mind-blowing to realise that some objects visible to the naked eye here on Earth are so far away that we are seeing them as they were over 2 million years ago... (link)

When I was in France a couple of weeks back, I had my mini-telescope with me and did a bit of stargazing... I thought I could tell where the planets were, since they are usually much brighter than the stars, and I saw a distinctly red-coloured object low down in the sky (which I typically cannot see in London), and immediately assumed (because of colour and brightness) that it was the planet Mars... but upon further investigation, it turned out to be the star 'Arcturus', which derives it's name from Greek, meaning 'the rival of Mars', named so (obviously) because of it's red appearance... it is also something like the 4th brightest star in the night sky.

Glad to see that Pluto is set to retain it's status as a planet, although I relly think they should come up with a better name for the '10th planet' beyond Pluto, which is currently nicknamed 'Xena' (this is what happens when you let science geeks name things... It's better than 'Buffy' I suppose...)

 

[Michael88]

The diameter of ''Betelgeuse'' supergiant star is 600 million miles!

Scary, thats a big ball...

 

[Famine]

The diameter of ''Betelgeuse'' supergiant star is 600 million miles!

Scary, thats a big ball...

The diameter of Earth's orbit around the Sun is 190 million miles...

Biiiiiiiig ball.

 

[Small_Fryz]

But as you said yourself VV Celphi is the diametere of saturn's orbit around the sun.

GIGAAAAAAAANTIC Ball.

Nice stuff Mars, i would like to see this stuff myself through a telescope, one day .

And its very interesting to think the things we see in the night sky are images of the things many thousands/millions years ago!!. They might not even exist anymore, or be in a totally different place! I guess this would make finding them quite hard?

 

[ChampCarFan]

wow these planets/stars/whatever are truly amazing

 

[Randymcchickenf]

It realy is amazing to think how large that is.

 

[Omnis]

So, Charon is only half the size of Pluto? That's so weird. Our news station had a diagram of all the 12 planets, and charon was easily as big as neptune. It was freakin' huge.

Also, my friend Cody was explaining about how she was talking to her mom about how large all these things were, and then her mom goes, "Yeah; now you know how insignificant your life is." LOL.

 

[Keef]

Neat article GT Pro, but why don't they classify a planet as an object that orbits the sun and is spherical by the force of its own gravity? I know it'd be a tuffy to find out if its gravity is strong enough to make it sperical, especially if we don't know what it's made of, but that would give astronomers something to argue about. I mean, the universe just wouldn't be the same if astronomers had an idea of what eachother were talking about.

I think I'll go look up some "definitions" of planet.

 

[GT4_Rule]

Thanks GTPro for the article.

I personally think its absolute BS if Charon, 2003UB313 and Ceres is considered planets. Pluto shouldn't even be considered a planet in the first place.

 

[Evolution.]

 

[DuckRacer]

<snip>

I think I've seen that somewhere...

(just pointin' it out )

 

[GT4_Rule]

In the funny pics thread. It was about time someone posted it here...

 

[Touring Mars]

And its very interesting to think the things we see in the night sky are images of the things many thousands/millions years ago!!. They might not even exist anymore, or be in a totally different place! I guess this would make finding them quite hard?

You probably wouldn't have too much difficulty locating an object since their motions are predictable and/or known... physically reaching another galaxy, however, would be a bit more difficult. Our nearest neighbour is 2 million light years away. The fastest known rocket is capable of generating speeds of up to 30 km per second* (amazingly fast... but still far too slow...) Even at that breakneck speed, it would take 20 billion years for us to reach the nearest galaxy - longer than the Universe has existed already!! Even at 10% c (1/10th the speed of light, it would still take 20 million years... and what's the betting that when we got there, we wouldn't be able to find a parking space?

* exhaust velocity - the actual speed of a man-carrying craft would presumably be considerably lower than this.