Xena size is smaller than thought

makc · Post by **makc** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 7:12 am

Article

disturbing thing is that, again, astronomers pretend to know more than they actually do. I mean, this is what they see, and this is what they show on presentations. kind of makes me re-think some things...

harry · Post by **harry** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 10:10 am

Hello Makc

also link
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsde ... s/2006/16/

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsde ... /16/image/

Its amazing the objects we find.

l3p3r · Post by **l3p3r** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 4:01 pm

I mean, this is what they see, and this is what they show on presentations.

nothing wrong with a bit of sensationalism!

orin stepanek · Post by **orin stepanek** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 12:58 am

I don't know how they measure their size; but as far as I'm concerned they are all planets. And dollars to doughnuts they will find a lot more before they are finished.
Orin

harry · Post by **harry** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 1:11 pm

Hello all

Most of these outer limit planets and rocks are mainly made from water.

Imagine during space travel we could use these as water stations. Not only water but energy stations. Water is made from hydrogen and oxygen imagine the possibbilties.

makc · Post by **makc** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 2:47 pm

harry wrote:Water is made from hydrogen and oxygen imagine the possibbilties.

Yeah, after a dozen years of getting there, austronauts would be like bored-to-fu-kin-death so they will enjoy this endless game, water electrolysis and synthesis. 2H2O->2H2+O2, 2H2+O2->2H2O, 2H2O->2H2+O2, 2H2+O2->2H2O, 2H2O->2H2+O2, 2H2+O2->2H2O, ...just imagine all the fun yay

harry · Post by **harry** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 8:20 am

Hello Makc

Smile,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,I like your French

Qev · Post by **Qev** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 9:13 am

makc wrote:Article

disturbing thing is that, again, astronomers pretend to know more than they actually do. I mean, this is what they see, and this is what they show on presentations. kind of makes me re-think some things...

Um... that's simply a mock-up image showing the relative scales of the objects. They're not presuming to know much in the way of surface details of Xena or most of these other objects.

Orca · Post by **Orca** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 3:52 am

Anybody read the article on planet-finding in last month's Discover Magazine? There was an interesting comparison between the labels "planet" and "continent." The article pointed out that there's no scientific way to classify something as a "true continent." After all, isn't Asia physically connected to Europe with only an imaginary line separating the two? Couldn't Australia be a continent? Madagascar has its own continental plate...why is it not a continent? And on it goes, ect ect.

Planets are the same way. What defines a planet? Size? Moons? Whether or not it lies in the elliptic?

My own two cents: I will go with the idea mentioned in the article that the 8 planets that lie within the elliptic are "Major Planets" and everything else is a "Minor Planet" or "Planetoid." Easy enough, eh?
8)

harry · Post by **harry** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 7:35 am

Hello All

Hello Orca next time put in $2 worth.

With all the matter out there scattered. How can we travel at the speed of light and miss all these ojects.

My speed of light space ship will stay in the garage until the time is right.

Orca · Post by **Orca** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 10:52 am

Harry, I doubt even your imaginary "light-speed ship" would have trouble with debris. The relatively small amount of material in the Kuiper belt and the vast amount of space it encompasses means the chances you'd even find a good-sized chunk is pretty small. In fact the article I mentioned suggests that once you get out into the Oort cloud (which is even more dispersed) the distance between objects is on the order of an AU or so.

harry · Post by **harry** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 12:21 pm

Hello Orca

I feel better now,,,,,,,,,,,,,i will grease and oil change my speedy space ship.

But! it does sound like russian roulette.

I better not tell my sapce ship that you said

I doubt even your imaginary "light-speed ship" would have trouble with debris

orin stepanek · Post by **orin stepanek** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 3:17 pm

I don't think size should determine weather a planet is a planet. When Pluto was discovered it was called a planet. So when a planet was discovered; it was called a planet. Pluto's diameter is 1/2 the size of Mercury. Mercury is 1/3 that of Earth. Earth is 1/10th that of Saturn. http://www.sizes.com/natural/planets.htm
If it's round and orbits the Sun it should be a planet. If it's irregular; a planetoid or asteroid. If it orbits a planet; it's a moon or satellite. That's simple enough. Why make it complicated. My thoughts anyway.
Orin

Qev · Post by **Qev** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 5:17 pm

Pluto should be grandfathered 'legacy planet status', regardless of how they determine what should be called a 'planet' or a 'minor body'. We've always called it a planet, it was discovered as one, might as well just leave it be. It's not a small object, either... personally, they ought to use Pluto as the minimum size for an indepenantlly orbiting object to be labelled a planet; any KBO they find bigger than Pluto gets the 'planet' label. I don't see what the big deal is.

Starship Asterisk*

Xena size is smaller than thought

Xena size is smaller than thought

Re: Xena size is smaller than thought