Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Shadowy Man · 10-26-2002, 07:59 AM

How about this astronomical mnemonic:

"Oh, Be A Fine Girl Kiss Me"

Vinnie · 10-26-2002, 08:54 AM

"Oh, Be A Fine Girl, Kiss Me." "Right Now?" "Sure."

Vinnie

Jeremy Pallant · 10-26-2002, 10:42 PM

What I'm curious to know is how large do Kuiper Belt Objects get? Pluto may be the largest that we know of, but that doesn't rule out one that is larger.

Frankly, I don't have any emotional attachment to calling Pluto a planet, planetoid or whatever.

The Lone Ranger · 10-26-2002, 10:49 PM

Like a lot of things in the universe, there's no clear distinction. The difference between a very small planet and a very large asteroid is quite arbitrary.

That said, I'd agree with keeping Pluto as an "official" planet, simply because it has priority.

I've heard astronomers say it's nearly certain that there are objects out there in the Kuiper belt that are bigger than Pluto. It'll be interesting to see what happens when one is located.

Cheers,

Michael

case · 10-27-2002, 01:30 AM

Okay. For the last time, for those of you who are confused: Pluto is a dog.

Now what the hell is Goofy?

Shadowy Man · 10-27-2002, 08:12 AM

Jeremy: they can't get too large or we would have noticed their gravitational perturbations on the orbits of the other planets. One thing to keep in mind though is that the size of the objects are almost always dependent on the assumption of the albedo. What, in my opinion, is most significant about this discovery is that, because they could resolve the object and thus measure its actual size, they could determine the albedo. They found that the albedo was 10%ish instead of the usual 4%ish they assume. If you assume that the rest of the KBOs have the same higher albedo then all of their sizes actually shrink.

DNAunion · 10-27-2002, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Shadowy Man: How about this astronomical mnemonic:

"Oh, Be A Fine Girl Kiss Me"

DNAunion: Personally, I like this one better.

"Oh Boy, Alex Fillipenko Gives Killer Midterms"

It's less "sexist" (in the original, a girl is not fine if she doesn't kiss a boy who asks) and Alex Fillipenko relates to astronomy better than kissing does.

I got this mnemonic from a video lecture series on astronomy by Alex Fillipenko (he says his students came up with it). I guess if you want to be more general you could replace "Alex Fillipenko" with "Astronomy Faculty" or something.

[ October 27, 2002: Message edited by: DNAunion ]</p>

DNAunion · 10-27-2002, 09:48 AM

DNAunion: My 2 cents on Pluto.

No, it should not be called a planet because it's orbit is extremely elliptical, no other planet cross paths with another planet, it is not in the plane of the ecliptic (or whatever), it fits in with neither the terrestrial nor Jovian planets, it is just one of many TNOs.

Yes, it should be called a planet because it has a moon.

Take that darned moon away and the decision is simple. But then again, have we found any large asteroids that have gravitationally captured smaller asteriods? And if not yet, what happens if we find one?

As far as sticking to calling Pluto a planet just for tradition's sake, I personally think that's the wrong thing to do. Forget about maintaining the status quo - look at the facts as they stand now to make the decision.

[ October 27, 2002: Message edited by: DNAunion ]</p>

Flynn McKerrow · 10-27-2002, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DNAunion:
<strong>Yes, it should be called a planet because it has a moon.

Take that darned moon away and the decision is simple. But then again, have we found any large asteroids that have gravitationally captured smaller asteriods? And if not yet, what happens if we find one?</strong>

<a href="http://www.solarviews.com/eng/ida.htm" target="_blank">Here</a>is a nice page with some images and background regarding the Galileo flyby of the asteroid Ida and its natural satellite Dactyl.

In this case the satellite isn't thought to have been gravitationally captured. Then again, I don't believe that Charon was captured by Pluto, considering the relative sizes of the two, and the low mass of both.

I know for a while there was some discussion that Charon's existence gave Pluto planet status, but with the discovery of the Ida/Dactyl pair, I believe that argument was discarded.

Unfortunately, I've fallen a bit out of touch with news on the Planetary Science front since I left grad school, so I can't really say much more.

Shadowy Man · 10-27-2002, 10:35 AM

Since there is no official and discrete definition for the word "planet" it doesn't really matter what you call it.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-26-2002, 07:59 AM	#11
Shadowy Man Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: A Shadowy Planet Posts: 7,585	How about this astronomical mnemonic: "Oh, Be A Fine Girl Kiss Me"

10-26-2002, 08:54 AM	#12
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	"Oh, Be A Fine Girl, Kiss Me." "Right Now?" "Sure." Vinnie

10-26-2002, 10:42 PM	#13
Jeremy Pallant Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Tucson, Arizona, USA Posts: 1,242	What I'm curious to know is how large do Kuiper Belt Objects get? Pluto may be the largest that we know of, but that doesn't rule out one that is larger. Frankly, I don't have any emotional attachment to calling Pluto a planet, planetoid or whatever.

10-26-2002, 10:49 PM	#14
The Lone Ranger Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Eastern U.S. Posts: 1,230	Like a lot of things in the universe, there's no clear distinction. The difference between a very small planet and a very large asteroid is quite arbitrary. That said, I'd agree with keeping Pluto as an "official" planet, simply because it has priority. I've heard astronomers say it's nearly certain that there are objects out there in the Kuiper belt that are bigger than Pluto. It'll be interesting to see what happens when one is located. Cheers, Michael

10-27-2002, 01:30 AM	#15
case Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Missouri Posts: 420	Okay. For the last time, for those of you who are confused: Pluto is a dog. Now what the hell is Goofy?

10-27-2002, 08:12 AM	#16
Shadowy Man Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: A Shadowy Planet Posts: 7,585	Jeremy: they can't get too large or we would have noticed their gravitational perturbations on the orbits of the other planets. One thing to keep in mind though is that the size of the objects are almost always dependent on the assumption of the albedo. What, in my opinion, is most significant about this discovery is that, because they could resolve the object and thus measure its actual size, they could determine the albedo. They found that the albedo was 10%ish instead of the usual 4%ish they assume. If you assume that the rest of the KBOs have the same higher albedo then all of their sizes actually shrink.

10-27-2002, 09:48 AM	#18
DNAunion Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: USA Posts: 1,072	DNAunion: My 2 cents on Pluto. No, it should not be called a planet because it's orbit is extremely elliptical, no other planet cross paths with another planet, it is not in the plane of the ecliptic (or whatever), it fits in with neither the terrestrial nor Jovian planets, it is just one of many TNOs. Yes, it should be called a planet because it has a moon. Take that darned moon away and the decision is simple. But then again, have we found any large asteroids that have gravitationally captured smaller asteriods? And if not yet, what happens if we find one? As far as sticking to calling Pluto a planet just for tradition's sake, I personally think that's the wrong thing to do. Forget about maintaining the status quo - look at the facts as they stand now to make the decision. [ October 27, 2002: Message edited by: DNAunion ]</p>

10-27-2002, 10:35 AM	#20
Shadowy Man Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: A Shadowy Planet Posts: 7,585	Since there is no official and discrete definition for the word "planet" it doesn't really matter what you call it.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.