Is there a Center to the Gate network

[Quadhelix]

What is and what is not a planet is not an arbitrary classification.

Uhm, yeah, actually it is.

By the way, the reason they claimed Pluto is not a planet is because of all the rocky debris nearby...not the size of Pluto.

Well, that, and the fact that Pluto passes through Neptune's orbit.

Many scientist have said, and I agree, that if a body has enough gravity to pull it into a sphere is the qualifier for what is and is not a planet.

I say that anything that orbits the Sun is a planet: that is the definition that they used up until the 1860s, so that definition is good enough for me.[/sarcasm]

Seriously though, this isn't the first time that they've changed the definition of "planet" to keep it an exclusive club.

Also, Proxima is .24 LYs away from the Alpha Centauri twins in the information I looked up for a summer school class I taught on space. That is far beyond the range of a star system, therefore they are two different systems.

Except that, as already mentioned, Proxima Centauri orbits the Alpha Centauri pair, and is thus most definitely part of the Alpha Centauri system. You, after all, are the one saying that the edge of a star system should be found gravitationally, so you have no basis for claiming that a star orbiting another is not in the same system.

By the way, I'm still wondering why the edge of a solar system should be defined as sqrt(g*r)=1.00 km/s, rather than 2 km/s, or 0.5 km/s, or pi km/s, or 1.01 km/s.

Logic people...try it.

Why we keep trying, but every time we try to find 2+2, you keep shouting "73."

[Control_Chair]

By the way, Mars doesn't have any moons. They'd have to be round for that. What Mars has is two large asteroids in orbit.

The definition of a moon is A natural satellite revolving around a planet. Nowhere in that definition does it state that a moon has to be round. Jupiter has 63 known moons, 4 of which are the Galilean moons which are round, and the rest are captured asteroids etc. But all are moons.

[Saquist]

That was quite humorous.

I think a center to the gate network is an excellent idea but they've ruled that out haven't they by having multiple chevrons that dial to other networks instead of having a central hub.

[knowles2]

What is and what is not a planet is not an arbitrary classification. By the way, the reason they claimed Pluto is not a planet is because of all the rocky debris nearby...not the size of Pluto. Which means if a bunch of asteroids float by Earth we're no longer on a planet.

Where did you hear/read that, every article I have read on the subject said the decision was made on the size of planet. Cannot remember anything about asteroids being involve.
Classifying a object should be done on what the majority of astronomers agree definition should be, this definition can of cause change over time as we learn more.
So far they agree the pluto an similar objects should not be called planets.

Many scientist have said, and I agree, that if a body has enough gravity to pull it into a sphere is the qualifier for what is and is not a planet. Pluto is a sphere, therefore it is a planet.

Not until the majority agrees, and so far it seem those other scientist cannot gather enough signatures together to force a other vote or discussion on the subject. Perhaps because most agree that having 80 planets is a bit ridiculous and if they can be divided up an classified better then they should be. An most astronomer again to me seem to argue base on pluto always been a planet an so it should stay a planet but similar objects should reclassified as something else, this been said by several astronomers.

By my count we have at least 13 planets in our star system. Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Ceres, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, Quaoar, Eris, Sedna. There are probably others, but these I've checked out myself in pictures...they are round.

If you counting them in the planet section then most certainly there are others which have yet to be discovered. I would love them to have this debate on a nation tv quiz. It seem like a tricky question ask, and I would the contested to talk back to the presenter be fun to watch. An them being roughly round sound stupid, I mean would call a object just 5 meters which through some fluke, turn into a spheroid a planet.

By the way, Mars doesn't have any moons. They'd have to be round for that. What Mars has is two large asteroids in orbit.

Agreed but they may in indeed become round over time through gravitational forces or they crash into the planet. We probably need a new definition to describe what the mars asteroids should be called as moon is probably not the right term for them and asteroid in my opinion does not fit them either.

, Proxima is .24 LYs away from the Alpha Centauri twins in the information I looked up for a summer school class I taught on space. That is far beyond the range of a star system, therefore they are two different systems. The astronomers who labeled Proxima in the Alpha Centauri System were simply wrong. That happens, you know.

And a star may change size...but it doesn't change mass, which is what the gravity is derived by. So what stage of its life it is in doesn't change its gravity unless it somehow gains or loses material. Simply expanding into a Red giant doesn't alter the potency of its gravity.

Logic people...try it.

I thought the mass of the star would increase as the hydrogen is change to helium through the process of fusion reaction, an helium is heavier than hydrogen. An then of cause the odd asteroid and comet may crash into a sun an add mass which would change the gravity of the start, probably increase the distance than the size of a proton or two but it would change the distance.
The astronomer past mistakes should be fixed then.

So is asking a child to remember just 9 planets because pluto just happen to be discover when it was easy to get classed as a planet and there was no rivals. Eith

[Quadhelix]

I thought the mass of the star would increase as the hydrogen is change to helium through the process of fusion reaction, an helium is heavier than hydrogen. An then of cause the odd asteroid and comet may crash into a sun an add mass which would change the gravity of the start, probably increase the distance than the size of a proton or two but it would change the distance.

You're right about just about everything else, but not this. Helium is heavier than Hydrogen, but it takes two Hydrogen atoms to make one Helium atom.

First a note on notation: for the purposes of the explanation N(m) is the isotope of element N having an atomic mass of m. Thus, for example, Carbon-12 would be written as C(12). n will stand for a free neutron, which has an atomic number of zero and an atomic mass of 1.

Thus, a fusion reaction might look something like (reactions found here):

H(2) + H(3) --> He(4) + n

The atomic masses in this would be 2+3=5 --> 4+1=5


Some other reactions would be:

H(3) + H(3) --> He(4) + H(1) + H(1)

H(2) + He(3) --> He(4) + H(1)


Etc.



The point is that the final mass is the same as the initial mass, minus the energy lost as light (m=E/(c^2)).

[Aer'ki]

Where did you hear/read that, every article I have read on the subject said the decision was made on the size of planet. Cannot remember anything about asteroids being involve.
Classifying a object should be done on what the majority of astronomers agree definition should be, this definition can of cause change over time as we learn more.
So far they agree the pluto an similar objects should not be called planets.

Here is a link to a page explaining the situation.
http://www.universetoday.com/2008/04...nger-a-planet/

Here's a snippet from the article.

Spoiler:

Astronomers from the association were given the opportunity to vote on the definition of planets. One version of the definition would have actually boosted the number of planets to 12; Pluto was still a planet, and so were Eris and even Ceres, which had been thought of as the largest asteroid. A different proposal kept the total at 9, defining the planets as just the familiar ones we know without any scientific rationale, and a third would drop the number of planets down to 8, and Pluto would be out of the planet club. But, then… what is Pluto?

In the end, astronomers voted for the controversial decision of demoting Pluto (and Eris) down to the newly created classification of "dwarf planet".

Is Pluto a planet? Does it qualify? For an object to be a planet, it needs to meet these three requirements defined by the IAU:

It needs to be in orbit around the Sun – Yes, so maybe Pluto is a planet.
It needs to have enough gravity to pull itself into a spherical shape – Pluto…check
It needs to have "cleared the neighborhood" of its orbit – Uh oh. Here's the rule breaker. According to this, Pluto is not a planet.

Note the bit about the 'scientists' suggesting that 'planet' not have ANY scientific rationale for the term. It is BS like this that leaves me questioning their intelligence.

Compare their assertations to the following and see which makes more scientific sense.

1. Gravity Sphere- a body whose gravity is sufficient to cause its shape to become close to a perfect sphere.

2. Planetoid- a grav-sphere that is not of sufficient size to undergo subatomic changes(fusion, etc). Basically smaller than a star.

3. Planet- a planetoid in orbit around a star.

4. Moon- a planetoid in orbit around another planetoid.

5. Rogue Planet- a planetoid that doesn't orbit anything. (interstellar space)

See? Logic.

[Lantean General]

I'm gonna have to say no (even though Return Of the Ancients does channel certain frequencies of win.), the gate system may have began as a Alteran only thing but as they became more diplomatic I think they would have abandoned the need for one...but thats just me.

[Quadhelix]

Compare their assertations to the following and see which makes more scientific sense.

1. Gravity Sphere- a body whose gravity is sufficient to cause its shape to become close to a perfect sphere.

2. Planetoid- a grav-sphere that is not of sufficient size to undergo subatomic changes(fusion, etc). Basically smaller than a star.

3. Planet- a planetoid in orbit around a star.

4. Moon- a planetoid in orbit around another planetoid.

5. Rogue Planet- a planetoid that doesn't orbit anything. (interstellar space)

I don't see how this is any more logical than the official definition of a planet. Why are you so against giving bodies that make up the majority of the mass in their orbital regions special status?

Also, under this system, what are going to call the objects that are currently known as "planetoids"?

In any case, even if your version were more logical (which I don't necessarily believe), you are not in a position to define what are, in effect, arbitrary terms.

See? Logic.

I see fiat of Aer'ki.

[knowles2]

I say we just call them all Kuiper belt objects and leave it at that simple.
We got eight planets the rest are KBO simple, no nonsense and no arguments.

Runs an hide behind the sofa, why the planet pluto people throw stones at me.

[Aer'ki]

I say we just call them all Kuiper belt objects and leave it at that simple.
We got eight planets the rest are KBO simple, no nonsense and no arguments.

Runs an hide behind the sofa, why the planet pluto people throw stones at me.

That won't work for other star systems...nor for Ceres, by the way.

[Aer'ki]

I don't see how this is any more logical than the official definition of a planet. Why are you so against giving bodies that make up the majority of the mass in their orbital regions special status?

Because your neighbors don't define what you are.

[Quadhelix]

Because your neighbors don't define what you are.

Okay.

By that logic, the Moon, Europa, Io, Titan, and many others are all planets, since, after all, their neighbors don't define who they are.

[Aer'ki]

Okay.

By that logic, the Moon, Europa, Io, Titan, and many others are all planets, since, after all, their neighbors don't define who they are.

Moons don't orbit a star like planets do. And while a planet does alter the moon's orbit with its gravity, its presence has an active affect on the moon. It isn't just 'nearby.'

Pluto doesn't orbit the floating rocks around it, nor do they appreciably affect its orbit.

And yes, Luna, Europa, Io, and Titan are 'planetoids' the same as Earth, Mars, Mercury, etc. It's just their orbit that is the difference between Planet and Moon.

[Quadhelix]

Moons don't orbit a star like planets do. And while a planet does alter the moon's orbit with its gravity, its presence has an active affect on the moon. It isn't just 'nearby.'

But if their neighbors don't determine what they are, it shouldn't matter what they orbit.

Pluto doesn't orbit the floating rocks around it, nor do they appreciably affect its orbit.

I think that the main point is that it doesn't really affect their orbits.

And yes, Luna, Europa, Io, and Titan are 'planetoids' the same as Earth, Mars, Mercury, etc. It's just their orbit that is the difference between Planet and Moon.

Well, first, Earth, Mars, and Mercury are not planetoids; they are planets. The suffix "-oid" means, "something resembling a (specified) object." Thus, by definition, a planetoid is not a planet, because the implication is that a planetoid only resembles a planet, but is not actually a planet.

Indeed, Wikitionary goes as far as to say that the suffix "-oid" means, "Of similar form to, but not the same as," making the implication explicit.

[Saquist]

I'm gonna have to say no (even though Return Of the Ancients does channel certain frequencies of win.), the gate system may have began as a Alteran only thing but as they became more diplomatic I think they would have abandoned the need for one...but thats just me.

i didn't understand.
It began as Alteran...what's Alteran?