Comic Genesis Forums

the 10th planet, technically the 11th.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4730061.stm

i'm still going to go with the 13 planet model until i can be proven otherwise.


i hereby name this planet Persephony.

Major Maxillary wrote:i hereby name this planet Persephony.

I hereby rename it "Urethra" because dammit, Uranus needs a break from the ribbing.

We'll probably find that there are plenty of other little planets and oversized metoers out there...

Major Maxillary wrote:the 10th planet, technically the 11th.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4730061.stm

i'm still going to go with the 13 planet model until i can be proven otherwise.


i hereby name this planet Persephony.

No it's Yuggoth. Bring on the Fungi. See H.P. was right all along, and Cthulhu is real.

Lowky wrote:

Major Maxillary wrote:the 10th planet, technically the 11th.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4730061.stm

i'm still going to go with the 13 planet model until i can be proven otherwise.


i hereby name this planet Persephony.

No it's Yuggoth. Bring on the Fungi. See H.P. was right all along, and Cthulhu is real.

Wasn't Pluto supposed to be Yuggoth? And if old C. is real ... will you be babysitting him and changing his diapers? ^^

can a Kuyper Belt object really be considered a planet? What if there is some huge accretion of asteroids and dust out there that forms a mostly contigious body, are we going to call that a planet too?

I really think there needs to be an outward limit on the orbital plane where bodies can be considered planets of a certian star.

There are probably hundreds if not thousands of Pluto-sized chunks out there. Most of them probably don't have much rocky mass at all and are basically loosly packed balls of ice and stone. I don't know if they're so much planets as failed comets.

This one is bigger than Pluto though which is why it's the first of the objects past the orbit of Pulto be be seriously considered for planet status.

I believe the name they're considering is Xena.

If so I predict it will eventually be colonized by lesbian warriors and their sidekicks/lovers.

Eheheh ... ^^; I hope they'll find a mythological creature with a bit more panache than Xena to name that new planet after. 'Sides, if you populate a planet only with lesbians, won't the population die out within one generation?

...

Hmm, a mythological character to name a dark, Pluto-sized planet after (assuming it is a real planet, not just a chunk of one or an oversized snowball) ... How about ... no ... Hmm. Can anyone else think of one?

i am amazed no one has realised the obvious name yet: Ghastly! i mean.. it sort of look like his head if we keep praising him after each comic hehe

LindaH wrote:i am amazed no one has realised the obvious name yet: Ghastly! i mean.. it sort of look like his head if we keep praising him after each comic hehe

^^ But Ghastly isn't a deity of the Romans and Greeks ... is he? If he is, he's gone one better than ole Cthulhu for resurging into modern society.

*pokes planet* Unka ghastly? That you? Did we praise you too much.? Heh, good call , Linda!

Seriously though. Weren't they reconsidering pluto's planet status? And I dwonder ifthe majority of the scientific community agrees this may be a planet. Hm..

~Sara

Well... if they *don't* name it after a Greek/Roman god... then it'll be one of two planets that weren't (earth and... Xena/Ghastly/Yuggoth/Urethra)

As for the limit on distance... if an object orbits our star, and it is large enough to be considered a planet and orbits by itself or with some moons... (not with other bodies its size, clumped together and colliding, i.e. asteroid belt) I think it should be a planet...

Maybe it would be more accurate (definitely more confusing) to base planetary status on the eccentricity of the body's orbit... if it's *too* elliptical, then it is a comet... but from perfect circle out to a certain amount of ovoidness/eccentricity/ellipticalness (hee hee... funny words), it's a planet... cause if you think about it... the farther from the sun you go, the general trend is increasingly elliptical orbits...

[unimportant side-ramble]
and they only reason you can achieve a accurate sense of "farther out you go" is because the orbits are much more circular... comets, you can't say they are on average xxx distance from the sun (well, you could,) because they vary so much they'd rarely be hanging out near that average...

[tangent]
Does anyone else think of paperclips when picturing comets' orbits?

I really think there should be a distance limit. Mostly because we'd have hundreds of planets (I speculate) if we counted every body Pluto sized and larger with a less than eliptical orbit, and man would that make elementary school science fairs into a seething mass of foam balls and pipe cleaners.

Who are we, really, to say about something orbiting our sun "You're too far away for us; if we were to admit you're a planet, it would make our lives too hard"

... I mean, most of these have probably been there before there was even LIFE on earth, and now one species has the chutzpah to say that they are "too far away" from that species' planet to be considered a planet themselves?

I guess we could take the definition of planet (dictionary.com)

A nonluminous celestial body larger than an asteroid or comet, illuminated by light from a star, such as the sun, around which it revolves.

And change it to

A nonluminous celestial body larger than an asteroid or comet, illuminated by light from a star, such as the sun, around which it revolves but less than 49 (roughly pluto's maximum distance from the sun) AU from the star.

And that'd clear that matter right up.

[extra]
But... then we would have to apply that to EVERY solar system when determining which of its orbiting bodies are "planets" and which are "other." And what if there is a much larger star, whose planets orbit much like ours do, but are larger and more spaced out; a solar system similar to ours proportionally but four or five times as large physically? Then only a few of its orbiting bodies would get planet status, even though the others clearly would be orbiting the star.

But that doesn't matter; it's simpler for primary education exhibits if we limit what's considered a planet, and we want our children to have an easy 5 lives, right? Who cares about the scientific community, who studies these things for decades as their livelihood, anyway?

Gengar003 wrote:Who are we, really, to say about something orbiting our sun "You're too far away for us; if we were to admit you're a planet, it would make our lives too hard"

Who are we to name these balls of rock floating in space, gravitationally locked it to position (most likely against their will) by a fearsome and terrible master of fusing hydrogen? I'm surprised the Earth hasn't thrown off the shackles of Solar domination, struck back against its oppressors, and proudly declared that it DOESN'T ACCEPT ITS SLAVE NAME OF EARTH!

... I mean, most of these have probably been there before there was even LIFE on earth, and now one species has the chutzpah to say that they are "too far away" from that species' planet to be considered a planet themselves?

You're right, how insensitive of me. All orbital bodies should be considered equally worthy of planet status, no matter what. We wouldn't want to hurt their feelings or marginalize them in any way. In fact, I'm going to start a petition to demand that people stop referring to Luna as "the moon". That's so demeaning.

I guess we could take the definition of planet (dictionary.com)

And change it to

... but less than 49 (roughly pluto's maximum distance from the sun) AU from the star.

No no no no no! We CANNOT allow the law to discriminate against an orbital body, no matter what size it is, no matter what orbit it chooses, and no matter which direction it decides to rotate.
Planets are People Too!

You know.. while we're at it, we need to remedy the whole elliptical orbit issue. Who says that all orbits have to be circular? That

Gengar003 wrote:
I guess we could take the definition of planet (dictionary.com)

A nonluminous celestial body larger than an asteroid or comet, illuminated by light from a star, such as the sun, around which it revolves.

And change it to

A nonluminous celestial body larger than an asteroid or comet, illuminated by light from a star, such as the sun, around which it revolves but less than 49 (roughly pluto's maximum distance from the sun) AU from the star.

Would that be the same for all stars? I'm not astronomer or astrophiscist, but wouldn't Red Giants, and White Dwarf Stars have a differing gravitational radius from a Yellow Type star?

Gengar003 wrote:Well... if they *don't* name it after a Greek/Roman god... then it'll be one of two planets that weren't (earth and... Xena/Ghastly/Yuggoth/Urethra)

Earth is the roman name for terra i belive...though i could be wrong.

jay042 wrote:

Gengar003 wrote:
I guess we could take the definition of planet (dictionary.com)

A nonluminous celestial body larger than an asteroid or comet, illuminated by light from a star, such as the sun, around which it revolves.

And change it to

A nonluminous celestial body larger than an asteroid or comet, illuminated by light from a star, such as the sun, around which it revolves but less than 49 (roughly pluto's maximum distance from the sun) AU from the star.

Would that be the same for all stars? I'm not astronomer or astrophiscist, but wouldn't Red Giants, and White Dwarf Stars have a differing gravitational radius from a Yellow Type star?

Which we already do when calculating life zones, and gas giant zones and such.

not to get on the weird bits of the debate, but i would think it'd make sense to establish rather than as a base 'distance from star' to me more of a gravitational ratio measurant. i'd look up/churn out some numbers, but i'm too damn sick right now to go digging through Kepler.

jay042 wrote:

Gengar003 wrote:
I guess we could take the definition of planet (dictionary.com)

A nonluminous celestial body larger than an asteroid or comet, illuminated by light from a star, such as the sun, around which it revolves.

And change it to

A nonluminous celestial body larger than an asteroid or comet, illuminated by light from a star, such as the sun, around which it revolves but less than 49 (roughly pluto's maximum distance from the sun) AU from the star.

Would that be the same for all stars? I'm not astronomer or astrophiscist, but wouldn't Red Giants, and White Dwarf Stars have a differing gravitational radius from a Yellow Type star?

It would most likely differ, making a set value silly.

kite-san wrote:not to get on the weird bits of the debate, but i would think it'd make sense to establish rather than as a base 'distance from star' to me more of a gravitational ratio measurant.

Which is part of what I'm getting at... we shouldn't pick a distance and say "nothing beyond this that orbits is a planet"...