Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: You Won't Like The Consequences Of Making Pluto A Planet Again

  1. #1

    You Won't Like The Consequences Of Making Pluto A Planet Again


  2. #2
    Most people who wanted Pluto as a planet weren't aware of the existance of the Kuiper Belt. Making Pluto a planet is as useless as making Ceres a planet.

  3. #3
    None of the proposed definitions of "planet" deal with the concept that we ED players deal with all the time: the concept of co-orbiting planets. In ED, they're considered "planets", even thought hey all fail the "orbits somethign other than a star".

    In ED, when a smaller world orbits around a larger world, the two objects switch suddenly from "planet and moon" to "two co-orbiting planets" if the smaller object is sufficiently massive to force the barycentre out above the surface of the larger planet. If the smaller world is too small, then the barycentre is ignored and the system is simplified: the "moon" is considered to orbit around the centre of the "planet". But using the ED definitions, Charon isn't a moon of Pluto, Pluto and Charon are co-orbiting planets.

  4. #4
    Originally Posted by Sapyx View Post (Source)
    .............
    In ED, when a smaller world orbits around a larger world, the two objects switch suddenly from "planet and moon" to "two co-orbiting planets" if the smaller object is sufficiently massive to force the barycentre out above the surface of the larger planet. If the smaller world is too small, then the barycentre is ignored and the system is simplified: the "moon" is considered to orbit around the centre of the "planet". But using the ED definitions, Charon isn't a moon of Pluto, Pluto and Charon are co-orbiting planets.

    Barycentre:


    Well Barry Centre anyway...





    I keep meaning to post this as a feeble joke so now the craving is sated. Sorry.


  5. #5
    Does "cleared it's orbit" mean that binary planets wouldn't be "planets" at all? What about those ones who share their orbit with another same mass object? It is known since some time, that planets with the same mass can share the same orbit and just 'switch' places when meeting each other closely. Would those still count as planets?
    What about "planets" that orbit the smaller star of a binary/trinary/... starsystem? Some of those stars and their planets can be smaller than gas-giants and their "moons".
    We shouldn't forget about that!

    Is it also possible, that there exist a binary starsystem that isn't one? For example star A has a binary behavior not with another star but with a pair of massive binary Gasgiants. Would the objects in orbit of the star be planets and those in orbit of the binary gasgiants be not?

    I'm glad that i'm not the one who has to decide that xD

  6. #6
    Does FD even name objects as planets or moons?