CLOSED

Message boards : Cafe SETI : CLOSED
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

1 · 2 · 3 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile Scallywag
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 May 04
Posts: 162
Credit: 100,318
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 40169 - Posted: 26 Oct 2004, 2:37:03 UTC

Before I continue let me know if this is the appropriate forum for this.
I Refuse to hold myself responsible for any of my actions.

si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes
ID: 40169 · Report as offensive
Profile Scallywag
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 May 04
Posts: 162
Credit: 100,318
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 40247 - Posted: 26 Oct 2004, 6:02:05 UTC - in response to Message 40172.  


> You mean like extrasolar planets?
> Click the sig below for info on those:

I was referring to the continueing debate about of the lack of a standard definition of planets.

Examples of newly discovered "planets" in our solar system:

Sedna
disc: nov 14 03
Dist from sun:& to 90 billion miles
Dia:800-1100 miles
Orbit: 10500 years

Ixion
Disc:May 22 01
Dist from sun:3.7 billon miles
dia:500 miles
orbit:250 years

Quaoar
Disc:Jun 04 02
Dist: 4 billion miles
Dia:800 miles
Orbit:285 years

Others include:2002 UX25,Varuna,2002 TX300,2002 AW197,2004DW

How would you Define these bodies?
Would you classify them as planets or other?
I Refuse to hold myself responsible for any of my actions.

si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes
ID: 40247 · Report as offensive
N/A
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 01
Posts: 3718
Credit: 93,649
RAC: 0
Message 40261 - Posted: 26 Oct 2004, 7:17:54 UTC - in response to Message 40247.  

If we can't agree on Pluto's status, then how can we agree on Ixion, Quaoar, and Sedna? I think that the most important question is what they orbit (i.e.: the Sun) and how stable the orbit is. The problem is that this could suggest that asteroids are also planets (or is it "planetiod?") since they revolve around the Sun, too.

Very good question!
ID: 40261 · Report as offensive
N/A
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 01
Posts: 3718
Credit: 93,649
RAC: 0
Message 40596 - Posted: 27 Oct 2004, 13:34:38 UTC - in response to Message 40413.  

What I am suggesting, is that we simply approach this issue with a great deal of caution, because science is notorious for flip-flopping in what it believes from one day to the next.

Flip-flops are for beaches.

As NeoAmsterdam noted, a clear case in point is Pluto. First we are told that it is a planet; then we are told that it really isn't, and now we are told that it is again.

I think you'll find that the definitions for "planet", "planetoid", "satellite", "asteroid", "meteor", "meteorite", etc., change as quickly as we learn more about the universe.

The reason for Pluto's disagreement is only because we found the Oort cloud and Kupier Belt, and wondered if Pluto was birthed from the astronomical flotsam and jetsam (Or should that be the "cosmic flotsam and jetsam"?). The question of origin of an object is as important as the question of what the object is doing right now.

Of course, even if other planets are conclusively proven to exist, that is still a long way from discovering intelligent extraterrestrial life on any of them . . . if it truly exists.
The planets have been proven. They are accepted as existing by the astronomical/cosmological/oncological community (Hey! Doctors can be star-gazers, too!)
ID: 40596 · Report as offensive
Profile Scallywag
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 May 04
Posts: 162
Credit: 100,318
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 40866 - Posted: 28 Oct 2004, 3:12:46 UTC - in response to Message 40618.  
Last modified: 28 Oct 2004, 3:19:12 UTC

> As you will already know, some people accuse us Christians of believing by
> blind faith alone. They think that we are crazy for believing in Someone whom
> we've never really seen. Well, according to God's Word, that is what we are
> supposed to do; right? As Jesus said to Thomas when he doubted the Lord's
> Resurrection from the dead:

> Earlier, I noted that to date, over one hundred extrasolar planets have been
> "discovered" in recent years. The biggest problem for me regarding these
> alleged "planets", the most recent one being "Sedna", is that due to the great
> distances involved, and our very limited technology, there has been no actual
> visual observation of any of them as of yet. That's right folks; nobody has
> really seen any of them yet. You can not go outside, point your trusty
> telescope up in the night sky, and say "Look! There's Planet Sedna!". Trust
> me; it is not going to happen, and never will happen with anything that
> current astronomy buffs may own.

First of all I'd like to say that I respect your faith and wouldn't deam of debating it.Also I don't want to start an argument on Chistian beleif.
But If you kept up to date you would know that visable detection of extra solar planets is becoming a reallity.
check here:http://www.planetary.org/news/2004/planet_imaged_0916.html
Admittably this is a "supposed" planet around a brown drawf but
as technology advances clearer pictures will arise.
Remember 1000 yers ago people thought the eath was flat and the church beleived the earth was the center of the heavens.
They've adapted.




I Refuse to hold myself responsible for any of my actions.

si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes
ID: 40866 · Report as offensive
N/A
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 01
Posts: 3718
Credit: 93,649
RAC: 0
Message 40902 - Posted: 28 Oct 2004, 6:09:22 UTC
Last modified: 28 Oct 2004, 6:12:12 UTC

In a 1999 press release, the International Astronomical Union stated that no proposal has been made by the IAU to change Pluto's status as the ninth planet in our Solar System . I should add though, that Pluto isn't completely out of trouble quite yet. This is due to the fact that new Kuiper Belt Objects, or KBO's, continue to be discovered. What if someday, one is discovered that is even larger than Pluto itself? Will the debate begin afresh?
That's why I offered the label planetoid for two reasons. First, the -oid suggests that whatever the base is ("planet", in this case), the object does not adhere beyond doubt. Second, it is a cross beteween planet and asteroid.

...until the Hubble Space Telescope was launched, images of Pluto and its small moon Charon were nothing more than blurry, irregular-shaped globs of light.
Regrettably, they still are. You can't get a decent photo of Pluto anywhere!

...astronomers have been able to determine that Pluto possesses a truly spherical shape like the rest of the planets; but its surface features still remain totally indistinguishable.
The same can be said for Jupiter. To this day we still haven't a clue as to what lay beneath it's clouds.

The biggest problem for me regarding these alleged "planets", the most recent one being "Sedna", is that due to the great distances involved, and our very limited technology, there has been no actual visual observation of any of them as of yet.
Some of our "limited technology" was what found Pluto in the first place. When we observed the axial tilt of Uranus, and Neptune failed to explain the question, a ninth planet satisfied Occam's Razor (as well as the calculus). Still, I'd lke to see visual evidence too. Send your complaints to NASA now, because from what I've heard, Hubble is wobbling around and about to join Mir in history.

The truth of the matter is that the existence of these "new planets" is based entirely on secondary evidence... ...but my view is that this kind of evidence should not be regarded as being conclusive.
I agree. When independent minds through independent means arrive at the same conclusion using only scientific rigor, then the corrolation of results is what defines the conclusion.

If secondary evidence is good enough, then why is it that some of them refuse to believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and Savior of the world?
Uhm... I'm going to intentionally skip this for a while...

Paul's usage of the word "worlds", there does appear to be some room for the possible existence of extrasolar planets.
The word was olamím, and not olam. There is an interesting correllary, and it deals with the assumption that the Messianic world is not the same world as the one we inhabit - Therefore there are at least two worlds. There's the plurality. But why Paul used olamím is unclear, because he himself was living in the Christian Messianic world... Or does Christianity have two Messiahs?

I must admit, however, that I've never been able to understand Christianity, its schisms, or its factions.

I'd suggest a thread for this, WordWeaver, but I fear that it may end up being little more than fuel for the fires of hate - Religion has a tendancy towards the violent when matters of Faiths and Science get involved, but I know that there can be some form of reconciliation between the two. I've spent the better part of my 25 years trying to forge a Grand Unified Theory in which Science explains the claims of all Religions to the point that Religions are fortified with the reasoning and research of Science. But what can blow it all to smithereens is a simple, delicate, and potentially disasterous question: Do the inhabitants of [insert planet here] bow toward Terran Jerusalem?

Science can be wrong, as you say: "...we all should approach the issue of extrasolar planets with a great deal of caution, because science is notorious for flip-flopping in what it believes from one day to the next."

But so too can Religion: E pur si muove.

ID: 40902 · Report as offensive
N/A
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 01
Posts: 3718
Credit: 93,649
RAC: 0
Message 40985 - Posted: 28 Oct 2004, 17:42:31 UTC - in response to Message 40981.  

I hope that you read this before my previous post - I don't want to sound too harsh about mixing Science and Religion, but I've been through so many confrontations on the subject...

Like the job you did with your site! I'd recommend that your background be slightly more elegant at the ends of the gradient, and that you boldface white lettering on light lavender backgrounds (It's a little tough on the eyes). If you like, I can send you a PNG of how it looks on my machine.

Now, I just need to get some folks to join our team.

I'm trying to push the single-host 1×CPU team.
ID: 40985 · Report as offensive
Profile John Cropper
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 3 May 00
Posts: 444
Credit: 416,933
RAC: 0
United States
Message 41005 - Posted: 28 Oct 2004, 18:46:56 UTC - in response to Message 40902.  


> Regrettably, they still are. You can't get a decent photo of Pluto anywhere!

You can from Disney, but they're copyrighted AND expensive...


> Science can be wrong, as you say: "...we all should approach the issue of
> extrasolar planets with a great deal of caution, because science is notorious
> for flip-flopping in what it believes from one day to the next.
"

Perhaps a more specific definition is in order, taking into account not only size, but composition, presence of an atmosphere, ability to support life (not just as we know it, but any iteration thereof)...the list goes on.

Looking at a rock and giving it a name commensurate with its size ignores criteria that distinguish it from larger or smaller rocks around it.

Stewie: So, is there any tread left on the tires? Or at this point would it be like throwing a hot dog down a hallway?

Fox Sunday (US) at 9PM ET/PT
ID: 41005 · Report as offensive
Profile Scallywag
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 May 04
Posts: 162
Credit: 100,318
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 41099 - Posted: 29 Oct 2004, 2:01:39 UTC

Just a couple of thoughts about how we could define a planet.
If the citeria for a planet was based on atmosphere,size,shape, magnetic feild,composition,density ;then at least one other (mercury which has no atmosphere) would have to be illiminated from planet status.But if a standard was set to where at least ONE factor of the listed criteria was met then pluto would retain its status.Size would have to be set at say...1000 miles diameter for example.As long as all scientists could agree.
I Refuse to hold myself responsible for any of my actions.

si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes
ID: 41099 · Report as offensive
Profile Daniel Michel
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 2 Feb 04
Posts: 14925
Credit: 1,378,607
RAC: 6
United States
Message 41109 - Posted: 29 Oct 2004, 3:04:57 UTC - in response to Message 41099.  
Last modified: 25 Nov 2004, 1:30:45 UTC

> Just a couple of thoughts about how we could define a planet.
> If the criteria for a planet was based on atmosphere,size,shape, magnetic
> feild,composition,density ;then at least one other (mercury which has no
> atmosphere) would have to be illiminated from planet status.But if a standard
> was set to where at least ONE factor of the listed criteria was met then pluto
> would retain its status.Size would have to be set at say...1000 miles diameter
> for example.As long as all scientists could agree.

i think that size should be the determining factor for planets...all of them are composed differently...but the thing to me is it a small body in solar orbit...or a larger more significant body...to me a larger body, in orbit around the sun, that is not in orbit around a planet, is a planet...after determining what size a planet should be to qualify, then they can classify the planets by composition and origin to their hearts content.
>

PROUD TO BE TFFE!
ID: 41109 · Report as offensive
N/A
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 01
Posts: 3718
Credit: 93,649
RAC: 0
Message 41156 - Posted: 29 Oct 2004, 8:01:59 UTC - in response to Message 41026.  

I suspect though, that you may be saying that you use a very large monitor, and so the end of the gradient on the right side of your screen is slamming into the contrasting edge of the left side of the gradient.

Precisely.

As to the white lettering, I'll have a look at that. I did make some of it bold already, but I may have missed it in a few places.

At least it wasn't as bad as this one kid's site I saw in a hypermedia course. His idea of good design included
body     {background-color:   yellow;
          font-face:         'Comic Sans';
          font-size:          9px;
          color:              white;
          text-decoration:    blink;}


BTW, what browser are you using. The CC Messageboard looks best with Safari, but more crappy with Internet Explorer. Mozilla, Firefox, Camino, OmniWeb, etc. . . .

I use Safari for day-to-day, Camino for XML-based work (Don't bother with FireFox - Camino kicks its butt!), and Lynx when I'm logged in as >console.
ID: 41156 · Report as offensive
N/A
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 01
Posts: 3718
Credit: 93,649
RAC: 0
Message 41157 - Posted: 29 Oct 2004, 8:10:19 UTC

I'd suggest that the first consideration is whether or not the object revolves around the Sun. Any body that revolves around a second, non-stellar object, is deemed a satellite.

Second, stability of the orbit. If the orbit is in decay, or is irregular, or is bent/influenced by a third-party object(s), then the orbit should be considered unstable, and therefore is not a planet. Halley's is not ruled out, but minor asteroids are because of the gravitational influence and inter-attraction.

As for the suggestion of composition, if you deem that bodies with iron/nickel cores are planets, then the Jovian system is out of contention (But Pluto remains!).
ID: 41157 · Report as offensive
N/A
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 01
Posts: 3718
Credit: 93,649
RAC: 0
Message 41183 - Posted: 29 Oct 2004, 12:15:49 UTC - in response to Message 41160.  

Oh my gosh! White on yellow and blinking??? Well, to each his own. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder . . . just don't ever expect me to visit that site! :)

You won't have to. They were pushing HTML, not aesthetics.

While I have Internet Explorer, Safari, Omniweb and Firefox on my hard drive, I mainly switch between Safari and IE. In the beginning, I really didn't care too much for Safari due to its simplicity, but now I use it regularly . . . but Safari isn't perfect, so I still have to rely on IE for somethings, plus to see how a Windows user might see things.

Yeah, Safari was a straight port of Konqueror. It's getting better, but I'd like better cookie control and XML support.

Otherwise, the site looks really good! Extra points on the rollover buttons! :-)
ID: 41183 · Report as offensive
Dave(The Admiral)Nelson

Send message
Joined: 4 Jun 99
Posts: 415
Credit: 22,293,483
RAC: 1
United States
Message 41235 - Posted: 29 Oct 2004, 16:45:29 UTC - in response to Message 40618.  
Last modified: 29 Oct 2004, 16:54:19 UTC

WordWeaver

>"because science is notorious for flip-flopping in what it believes from one day to the next."


I consider the above to be a stupid statement. Your religious fundamentalism is showing. Please cite some evidence to support your point.

Do you mean that when science uncovers new evidence on any given matter that it alters its hypothesis accordingly or abandons it completely if the evidence is sufficient? Isn't that the nature of science? Isn't that what it is supposed to do?

You'll never catch theology doing that will you?



Dave Nelson
ID: 41235 · Report as offensive
1 · 2 · 3 · Next

Message boards : Cafe SETI : CLOSED


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.