A planet in a four-star system

Off topic discussion zone.

Moderators: winston, another_commander, Cody

User avatar
cim
Quite Grand Sub-Admiral
Quite Grand Sub-Admiral
Posts: 4072
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2011 6:19 pm

Re: A planet in a four-star system

Post by cim »

PhantorGorth wrote:
Full definition:

Code: Select all

A planet is a celestial body that 
    (a) is in orbit around the Sun, 
Well, that's just invalidated the original topic, then.
User avatar
Commander McLane
---- E L I T E ----
---- E L I T E ----
Posts: 9520
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 9:08 am
Location: a Hacker Outpost in a moderately remote area
Contact:

Re: A planet in a four-star system

Post by Commander McLane »

cim wrote:
PhantorGorth wrote:
Full definition:

Code: Select all

A planet is a celestial body that 
    (a) is in orbit around the Sun, 
Well, that's just invalidated the original topic, then.
:lol: Especially if it's indeed "the Sun" that's to be orbited, because that'd exclude anything outside our own solar system anyway. :wink:
User avatar
Selezen
---- E L I T E ----
---- E L I T E ----
Posts: 2530
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:14 am
Location: Tionisla
Contact:

Re: A planet in a four-star system

Post by Selezen »

That's why any planets not in orbit of our own sun are referred to as "exoplanets".
User avatar
PhantorGorth
---- E L I T E ----
---- E L I T E ----
Posts: 647
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 6:48 pm
Location: Somewhere off the top left of Galaxy 1 map

Re: A planet in a four-star system

Post by PhantorGorth »

Commander McLane wrote:
cim wrote:
PhantorGorth wrote:
Full definition:

Code: Select all

A planet is a celestial body that 
    (a) is in orbit around the Sun, 
Well, that's just invalidated the original topic, then.
:lol: Especially if it's indeed "the Sun" that's to be orbited, because that'd exclude anything outside our own solar system anyway. :wink:
Yeah I noticed that. I assume they use the term Sun to be the sun of the system. After all "our sun" is called Sol. (As well as the fact that term "our sun" that makes perfect sense implies there must be more than one. The term "the sun" is therefore just relative to you.)
Chat and relax with other commanders in the [url=irc://irc.oftc.net/oolite]DS's Seedy Space Bar[/url]. The Coolest Bar in the Eight.

Phantor's OXPs: [EliteWiki] GalCop Rewards and [EliteWiki] Safe Docking
User avatar
DaddyHoggy
Intergalactic Spam Assassin
Intergalactic Spam Assassin
Posts: 8515
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 9:43 pm
Location: Newbury, UK
Contact:

Re: A planet in a four-star system

Post by DaddyHoggy »

PhantorGorth wrote:

Sorry, wrong DH. It's a "Dwarf Planet" and it is large enough to pull it into a sphere. The criteria it fails to be a full blown planet is "(c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit" as there are a lot more object in similar orbits nearby.

Full definition:

Code: Select all

A planet is a celestial body that 
    (a) is in orbit around the Sun, 
    (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and 
    (c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit 
The definition of the Dwarf Planet is:

Code: Select all

A celestial body that 
    (a) is in orbit around the Sun, 
    (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, 
    (c) has not cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit, and 
    (d) is not a satellite.
You're quite right I'm wrong - weird, that I was sure I'd read somewhere that Pluto wasn't sufficiently spherical to be a planet, but on Googling I could find no evidence that this was the case and plenty to say that it was!

I find the comments on this (old) article fascinating - especially that the decision was taken by so few members and is still ignored by many respected Astronomers: http://www.universetoday.com/13573/why- ... -a-planet/
Selezen wrote:
Apparently I was having a DaddyHoggy moment.
Oolite Life is now revealed here
Post Reply