Comments on: Sun With A Hundred Worlds

By: Tim Allman

Tim Allman — Mon, 13 Mar 2017 15:30:50 +0000

I think the issue here is that the word planet, along with other astronomical identifiers, has both a technical meaning and a public colloquial understanding. Being a chemist (i.e. not an astronomer), it seems to me that any definition that made the moon a planet would be absurd and would be unacceptable to the public. Look at the kerfuffle over the reclassification of Pluto and the creation of the crazy class “dwarf planet” (which contrary to any semantic logic is not a type of planet).

I think that the notion of “planet” is quite (but not completely) clear now and this proposal will benefit no one.

By: Robert Norton

Robert Norton — Mon, 27 Feb 2017 12:54:23 +0000

The moon is the moon,stars are stars and pluto is a Dwarf planet. We years ago well almost two +talked Professor Brian Koberlein about Jenssen but it’s years or even decades away, now or at Princeton, the Researchers, and NASA/JPL and probably maryland university where your at got a glimpse of seven new exoplanets in the habital zone.arond a Dwarf Staras we map space we find the means to someday or millennium find the sweet zone and maybe start humanity once are Technology advances to a new level where Space Exploration will be like ridding a bike but at a much faster vilosity you know good job on PLUTO everyone is so sensitive but it’s always been the ninth planet from our sun so thank you My Good Friend and thank you for your Interpretations of quantum mechanics all the way back to Niels Bohr/ Einstein/Newton/Keplers third law says that if you take the Cube of the semi-major axis(a measure of the size of a ellipse)and divide it by square of its orbital period how long it takes to complete one orbit, then you always get the semi-major axis is measured in AU and then period in years,then that constant is mass of the central object.or you tought me let’s say a moon passes a planet and you see its shadow, by how fast that shadow is shown then disappears is the way we can find out the gravity of that planet . ` .your the best keep up the Brilliantly illustrated written and taught to the world oh ya you are the strongest link to Evolve.

By: e Marie

e Marie — Sat, 25 Feb 2017 00:05:27 +0000

Gravitation of mercury in thermal conditions has been proven in open HS class instruction. Mars does go beyond Earth visuals. A left of out field is still in the ballpark of exchange. Variations of approach do retain a comparative.

These machine grades are a combination of only two truths and all else sight.

By: Bernardo

Bernardo — Fri, 24 Feb 2017 19:19:11 +0000

Oh, you’re right, I didn’t think about them… Well, you could change the statement by something like “and it orbits around a star or doesn’t orbit nor describe any geometrical pattern around any star”.

By: Peter

Peter — Thu, 23 Feb 2017 21:13:21 +0000

That would exclude the”rogue planets that wander cold deep space all alone”…

By: Bernardo

Bernardo — Thu, 23 Feb 2017 18:05:29 +0000

To the definition proposed by Alan Stern, one could add something like “… and it orbits around a (or its) star…”, thus avoiding the problem that if not so, our Moon and the other moons would be planets too.

By: genialityofevil

genialityofevil — Thu, 23 Feb 2017 17:43:24 +0000

How about gravity? Mars and Mercury have the lowest gravity of the planets yet still twice as high as any moon or dwarf planet.