Should we Reorganize the Solar system?
Question:
1.It must have a solid surface with a core or previously active core.
2.It can't be made of ice.
3.It must orbit the Sun & be round.
Jupiter,Saturn,Uranus & Neptune should not be Planets because they do not have surfaces they should be classified as hybrids between a Star & Planet. They should be called "Angles" because Angles are neither god or human.Such as Planets being Human & Stars being god.
A moon should be defined as "any object that orbits an object that orbits the Sun". The Moons that orbit Jup-Nept would qualify as planets if they drifted on their own. They are like children that still live at home.
Pluto is not a Planet yet because its composition has yet to be confirmed such as if it has a core or a core that was previously active. If it existed closer in,would it act like a comet?
That still would not change what Charon is. Charon is a moon but Pluto not a planet.yet.
This leave 3 types of members in the solar system.
The Solar system is member that exist in the immediate grasp of the Sun.
Answer:
Please don't touch it !
It is much safer to leave it as it is !
Yes if it makes you happy, but I'm not sure if many will follow your plan.
And what would be the point of all this, would it tell us anything new? I just don't get people who are always trying to change things for no particular reason. Sure, if something needs changing or updating, then go ahead. But if it ain't broke, don't fix it!
Just a thought, who comes up with these rules and definitions of what a planet should be? And who put him in charge of the solar system? Why should we go by what he says?
No, I don't think that's going to fly with anyone. We already have a definition for planet, and that's not it. The gas giants are no where near big enough to be stars.
You are not talking about reorganizing the solar system you are merely classifying the planets as to their composition.
That's not re-organizing, I think that's re-listing and openly justifying why an object that orbits the sun/ has a core is or is not a planet.
You made it sound like you were gonna get the super strength laser beams out. Lol.
Having too much free time, hey?
Perhaps you should reorganize the nomenclature of your face instead.
You nose has two holes in it, and its purpose is to bear nostril, so it should be called nostril holder instead.
Your mouth is just a cavity, it is not material; it is only the place where your tongue rests. So it should not be called anything at all.
See where it goes?
The astronomers have their definition, which suits them. Call gas giants "angels" if you wish (note proper spelling thereof) but no one will follow your lead, and you'll be alone talking to yourself. Your call.
I don't know. I always hate rearranging the furniture. Too much trouble and gives me a back ache. And, then the whole solar system would need painting.
Not sure what you mean by defining Jupiter and the other gas giants as "angles" - an angle is the intersection of two lines, so that wouldn't make sense for objects orbiting the sun.
And while we can't see the surface of Jupiter et al. we don't know that there isn't a solid surface of some kind under those huge atmospheres.
And why can't a planet be made of ice? If Earth was farther from the sun (out beyond Mars) it would be considered an ice world, so does location in a solar system define a planet?
And what about exo-systems - what do we call objects orbiting other stars? Many of the worlds we know of so far don't meet your criteria for planet, but that just makes things more confusing.
I think all this is just unnecessary, trying to add complexity where its not required.
I'm afraid I have to turn down your suggestions.
..The Moons are orbiting the main planet..
All the planets except the dwarf plant pluto is circling around the sun, Pluto tends to "Oval" around the sun.
Ice? I haven't seen an ice planet. Perhaps a Ice Moon.
Most of them are round.
The logic of this one is baffling....
((goes to take a Motrin))
-- ShadowGate
This is extraterrestialism at its worst. We the Jovian and Saturn ambassadors wish to register our strong condemnation of this geocentrist view. Next time another Shoemaker-Levy event comes round, we'll just let it take out Earth shall we?
You may make your suggestions to the International Astronomical Union if you wish, but I very much doubt that they would be receptive to such changes as you mentioned. I believe they are quite happy with the definitions currently in place, now that they've cleared up the confusion over Pluto.
i don't see why we should change it, why would gas giants be considered angels. a planet is referred to any object that orbits the sun, it doesn't matter what its physical appearance is. a moon is an object that orbits a planet, it doesn't matter how big, some moons are larger than planets like Pluto. but lately scientists have considered Pluto a dwarf planet, it makes sense because they haven't separated them from other planets, they have only given it a name that describes it better (a small planet). but how does angels describe gas giants. we refer to angels and terrestrial planets as Gas giants and terrestrial planets. the name describes what it is. a moon will never drift off the planet and start orbiting the sun, that would be dangerous and very unlikely because if they could, they would have done so from the start of the planet formations.
More Questions & Answers...