Do gravity have to make celestial bodies round?

Yes. That is why any big object in space is a round sphere, suns, planets, black holes etc... It's all cause of gravity. If u made a ship or artifical planet big enough it would have to be a round sphere or it would collapse on its self. A fundamental rule of physics I believe.

I guess that gravity drags it into its center. Tho youll never now what we will find out there

i mean i know it does so dont taje me for a fool ^^

Pluto was discovered in 1930, and at the time, it was one of the biggest rock discovered past-neptune, so they though it was a planet.

However, the discovery of pluto was an amazing crack of luck. Since there are, hypotheticly (I think) about 20 other rocks of approximate size in the Oort cloud sorrounding the solar system.

They called Pluto a planet because there was no official scientific definition of a planet. They simply called "planet" whatever was really big and orbiting the sun (and the sun alone. Those who say the moon should be a dwarf planet have to go back to school. Moon orbits earth 100%, it's no dual planets)

Now, after the discovery of many other celestial body of Pluto's approximate size (and in one case, larger!) they had to choose: either we define "planets" as round bodies orbiting the sun (and have 3 more planets added to our solar system, with a possibility of 15 more eventually) or correct the Pluto mistake.

Since Pluto was the only "planet" to have been discovered by United Staters, U.S.A.'s lobbied a lot to never remove Pluto from the planet list (you think you rule the world, eh?).

Now, the idea that "we should continue to call Pluto a planet because it's been 80 years we called it like that" is just plainly stupid. If that was the case, we would still consider the world flat, God would have created us in 2002 (?) B.C. as we now are. There could be no scientific progress, because "It's always been like this" would always prevail.

And for those who think that defining WHAT is a planet is pointless, I have to recall you that with globalisation, every scientists in the world have to work on the same standards. They have established a lot of those (metric system jumps to mind, except for some United Staters who wanna stick with the Imperial system, for the reason that "it's always been like this"). They never established the "planet" standard until now, they had to, eventually.

For those who think that it's stupid to let a bunch of "moron scholars" choosing what is a planet and what's not, HEY! THOSE GUYS ARE ASTRONOMERS! You would not even know a THING about space, planets and all if they would not have worked their ass off in the past milleniums charting everything in our sky! THEY found celestial bodies, THEY name it, THEY classify it. I think they are the autority in the matter. What would you have liked, a world-wide vote about "Is Pluto a planet?".

And finally, those who think it was a big waste of money, the Astronomer congress was held in a city, and this city profited from some economic benefits out of having 200 scholars + staff in hotels, restaurants etc... Scientists are good for economy, so strop whining!


my 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 = 8 cents

cool down we are just having a friendly chat

and i still say that they are still calling it a planet just becouse they put dwarf in front of it

what about a gas planet or an ice planet or a rock planet the first word just describes it as what kind of planet

i wanted to call pluto and the other dwarves out in oort cloud area ice dwarfs

so that would have made ceris a rock dwarf

so what ever word you put in front of it if the word planet is in it it is still a planet

so as i said cool down

From what I can see, the only difference between a planet and a dwarf planet is that a dwarf planet is inconveniently located in a place where there's stuff that's not big enough to be pushed away. That's pretty much the only difference between the two definitions: a dwarf planet has failed to 'clear the neighborhood'. Dwarf is a bad term - Jupiter could have been a 'dwarf' planet if there had been other Jupiter sized planets around that it couldn't have moved away. Pluto, Charon and Ceres just have bad positioning. The astronomy community isn't nearly completely in agreement over this, either - 80% of the people who came to the conference where this was decided had already left when the vote was cast for this definition. Some are also arguing that the Earth, Jupiter, and Neptune haven't quite cleared their neighborhoods, either. I don't foresee the entire dwarf planet thing holding up for very long - Pluto will be a planet again soon enough.

Spot on Cikomyr.

?

meaning?

The posts here are really good and are keeping me very entertained. I never expected to get as many spirted replies. I must also say that I never intended for this thread to go the direction it did. My main reason for posting was that I thought it would have been a cool Idea to put Pluto in the game as a planet orbiting the Terran Alliances home solar system. Some people want Carriers, some want cloaking devices, some want an entire new system for tactical combat. All I wanted was a tiny planet in a single solar system. Nothing more.

With that said I would like to take the time to respond to some comments made within the thread.

They called Pluto a planet because there was no official scientific definition of a planet. They simply called "planet" whatever was really big and orbiting the sun (and the sun alone. Those who say the moon should be a dwarf planet have to go back to school. Moon orbits earth 100%, it's no dual planets)

The American Heritage Dictionary says......
plan·et (plnt)  
n.
1. A nonluminous celestial body larger than an asteroid or comet, illuminated by light from a star, such as the sun, around which it revolves. In the solar system there are nine known planets: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto.
2. One of the seven celestial bodies, Mercury, Venus, the moon, the sun, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn, visible to the naked eye and thought by ancient astronomers to revolve in the heavens about a fixed Earth and among fixed stars.
3. One of the seven revolving astrological celestial bodies that in conjunction with the stars are believed to influence human affairs and personalities.

Notice how Pluto is part of the definition, as it probably is in most dictionaries, school books and other informational material. But wait...... it also says the moon is as well! Whoa! The comment that was made about the moon being a Dwarf Planet....

if you took the earth out of the picture the path that the moon follows around the sun would not change at all the moons current orbit around the sun is perfect it does not move toward or away from the sun so lets reclassify it as a dwarf planet it is after all bigger than Pluto

Is actually correct according to the dictionary. Also, reading carefully, the author clearly stated.....

if you took the earth out of the picture

As far as....

Pluto is not one of the big 8, because its irregular shaped (not a perfect sphere), its not big enough and it is not in control of its orbit around the sun.

According to the definition recently adopted by the International Astronomical Union (IAU), a planet is a celestial body that [1]:

(a) is in orbit around a star or stellar remnants;
(b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape;
(c) is not massive enough to initiate thermonuclear fusion of deuterium in its core; and,
(d) has cleared the neighborhood around its orbit.

A dwarf planet is a category of celestial bodies in the solar system defined in a resolution passed by the International Astronomical Union (IAU) on August 24, 2006. The definition currently applies only to the Sun's solar system. It applies only to the English language, and terminology may differ in other languages.

The resolution describes a dwarf planet as an object that:
A: Is in orbit around the sun
B: Has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape.
C: Has not "cleared the neighborhood" around its orbit
D: Is not a satellite of a planet, or other nonstellar body

Notice how the definitions say the same things about orbit, shape, and Mass. They say nothing about not being in control of it's orbit, or that the orbit has to be in sync with the other orbits. Now if Pluto is considered a dwarf planet, which it is by the (IAU) the shape is identical to that of a Planet. Refer to the definitions above if this confuses you.

For those who think that it's stupid to let a bunch of "moron scholars" choosing what is a planet and what's not, HEY! THOSE GUYS ARE ASTRONOMERS! You would not even know a THING about space, planets and all if they would not have worked their ass off in the past millenniums charting everything in our sky! THEY found celestial bodies, THEY name it, THEY classify it. I think they are the authority in the matter. What would you have liked, a world-wide vote about "Is Pluto a planet?".

First, not all Astronomers agree on the points that were all talking about on this thread. Here are some passages I found to amplify my point.

* Some scientists think that Pluto really is a moon that escaped Neptune's gravitational pull.

* Charon is much bigger than any other moon in relation to the size of its host planet, further muddying Pluto's status. Some astronomers think of the setup as a double planet.

* "Pluto sized planets in distant near circular orbits are beyond the reach of current searches," said Lowell Observatory astronomer Bob Millis.

Everyone, even Astronomers, are subject to their opinions, whether they have all the facts or not. They are, after all, Human. Furthermore, just because your the lead singer in a band doesn't mean you can sing.

"Astronomers have invented a puzzling set of designations -- some straightforward, some creative, and some downright amusing -- to describe their findings. The result is a charming lexicon that unfortunately does not properly describe what's out there, according to some experts". said Senior Science writer Roy Britt of Science Tuesday.

And for those who think that defining WHAT is a planet is pointless, I have to recall you that with globalization, every scientists in the world have to work on the same standards. They have established a lot of those (metric system jumps to mind, except for some United Staters who wanna stick with the Imperial system, for the reason that "it's always been like this"). They never established the "planet" standard until now, they had to, eventually.

So, if they all work with the same standards...... Why do they not all agree? For the same reasons the United States sticks with our old, out dated Imperial system. Actually, we (Americans) use both. You can define anything you like with whatever words you so wish to choose, somebody, somewhere, will inevitably, create a new meaning and a new standard.

However, the discovery of Pluto was an amazing crack of luck. Since there are, hypothetically (I think) about 20 other rocks of approximate size in the Oort cloud surrounding the solar system.

The key word is "Hypothetically". No, proof, fact, or anything else. Just a theory, an opinion someone else has for one reason or another. Pluto is no where near the Oort cloud it is near the Kuiper Belt, and the Oort cloud does not surround the solar system.

Well past Sedna is another reservoir of material left over from the formation of the solar system, theorists believe. The Oort Cloud is a hypothesized sphere of frozen objects thought to start at about 10,000 AU and extend to 100,000 AU, or 1.5 light-years from the sun.

Now, after the discovery of many other celestial body of Pluto's approximate size (and in one case, larger!) they had to choose: either we define "planets" as round bodies orbiting the sun (and have 3 more planets added to our solar system, with a possibility of 15 more eventually) or correct the Pluto mistake.

Among the most significant developments related to Pluto was the discovery of the Kuiper Belt. Since the first Kuiper Belt Object was found in 1992, more than 1000 have been spotted, some are roughly half as big as Pluto.

As hope fades, a study released earlier this month shows that some Kuiper Belt Objects are smaller than had been assumed. The size of a distant object is often based on an estimate of its reflectivity, a measure called albedo. For years astronomers had assumed Kuiper Belt Objects where pretty dark, reflecting just 4 percent of the sunlight that hit them. Astronomer John Stansberry used NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope to obtain actual albedos for some of these icy objects. " Our results have albedos ranging from 6 percent to 18 percent for the eight objects I've analyzed," Stansberry said. If a Kuiper Belt Object is brighter than thought, then less surface area is required to reflect the amount of sunlight that was measured -- so the object's size must be revised downward. One object, catalogued as 2002 AW197, was thought to be two-thirds the diameter of Pluto. Stansberry has now shrunk that estimate to about one-third.

Given that our survey has covered almost the entire region of the Kuiper Belt, I'm willing to bet these days that nothing larger than Pluto will be found in the Kuiper Belt," says Caltech astronomer Mike Brown.

Since Pluto was the only "planet" to have been discovered by United Staters, U.S.A.'s lobbied a lot to never remove Pluto from the planet list (you think you rule the world, eh?).

Who exactly do you think the (IAU) is comprised of? Newsflash...... Read the definitions again made by the IAU. It is Global man, means we (Americans) have our dirty little hands in that too. "It applies only to the English language, and terminology may differ in other languages". Gee, I wonder why they did that. Who cares what country discovered what planet? If India would have discovered Pluto, you think they would have lobbied to keep it as a planet? You bet your butt they would have. So why is it so wrong that we Americans do it? Oh... Because we are Americans? Get over yourself dude. We are all human and do human things. Fact of the matter is, just because an organization says something or defines something a certain way, does not make it so. We Americans fight over that every day...... in the court of law. Some of the people who play this game are far more intelligent, have educations, and specialize in fields such as Astronomy and Astrophysics. Many of us are older than 12.

Sorry for the rant, I just get irked when people generalize about all Americans.

And finally, those who think it was a big waste of money, the Astronomer congress was held in a city, and this city profited from some economic benefits out of having 200 scholars + staff in hotels, restaurants etc... Scientists are good for economy, so strop whining!

Wow, your talking about a lot of money here... 200 Scholars..... Especially when the IAU meet only once every 3 years. The world holds olympiads more often then that. How much money do you think those 200 Scholars are paid for their time, and how much funding they use from their respective governments for their "Research". I bet you it is quite a bit more than that city makes.

Observations are slowly chipping away at the mysteries of Pluto, but the really big breakthroughs probably won't come until we see Pluto up close from a spacecraft fly by, which is expected to occur in 2015, when New Horizons finally reaches the distant world after a nine - year journey.
If this is the case, why in the world do we not just wait until we have the " Facts "? Why be in such a rush to re-catagorize Pluto? I mean, it has been a planet for about 80 years and all, I am sure we could wait 9 more years.

The mistake was made in the 1930's when they called it a planet, it's just took 80 yrs to correct that mistake. Go save the whales or campaign for the environment or something...

"Studies in 2003 showed that despite an almost nonexistent atmosphere, Pluto has wind and seasons and appears to have recently gone through a phase of global warming."

Another quote from an Astronomer. An Asteroid, Comet, or whatever you want to call it, that has seasons? Get out of here.
Pluto is suffering from Global Warming? I guess the Plutonians need to stop driving their SUVs too.

Bottom line........ All I would like to see is Pluto as a planet in the Galciv2. Is that so much to ask?

one way to do it would be to rename mercury

i know stupid idea

I never saw a larger post then Quixen's post... amazing...

Well, I think I did, once. But Quixen's was much more enjoyable to read.

Kudo to you Quixen, I really blew a joint up there. However...

Sorry for the rant, I just get irked when people generalize about all Americans.

I didn't generalized about Americans, but about United Staters. I am an american myself.

So why is it so wrong that we Americans do it? Oh... Because we are Americans?

No. But because you are United Staters, it could have been possible that "since the USA decided Pluto is a planet, everybody have to fall in line".

I think it's plainly wrong to have political/nationalism notions when science come into mind (and God knows there are already too much of it right now. Global Warming or Evolution jumps to mind). They had to define scientificly the term "planet" for the first time (drawn the line), and it would have pained my that they made an exception to Pluto simply because it was the only planet discovered by a man born in U.S.A.

You are right, if India had discovered their own planet, they would have lobbied for it's planet status too. That kind of attitude would not had any higher moral level. Now, what makes USA different? You could have won.

India would never have had ennough political pressure capability to actually win this kind of struggle. But the U.S.A. could have, and that's frightening. You have the power to choose what's and what's not in the world more than any other country. That's a heavy responsability. That's why there is so much ranting on U.S.A.

Often, in recent time, we have seen the U.S.A. take a stance not approved by the rest of the world. The country (and I'm not talking about it's citizen. There is a huge disparity, I know it.) seems to have double standards about what's right and wrong, at least from a Non-U.S.A. point of view. Personnaly, every time I hear a story about the U.S.A. governement doing "this" or "that", I wonder "What will be the next step?". I am happy the next step wasn't "Pluto is a planet, period."

Bottom line........ All I would like to see is Pluto as a planet in the Galciv2. Is that so much to ask?

I would like to see more planets (or dwarf planets?)/solar system myself. I wonder if it's possible to mod planets in starting solar systems? But before Pluto, I'd rather see Saturn, Venus, Neptune...

i believe that the game designers made it 5 planets per system only

I don't get those money wasting astonomers, they say that pluto isn't a planet, well then, why is jupiter or saturn a planet, all they really are is a big lumb of gas, someday they're going to say that the sun isn't a star or that the universe isn't even the universe  , god forbid they do something worthwhile, it wouldn't matter if pluto was a planet, or astroid or god almighty.  

Wow, Quixen you know a lot of stuff about astonomy.  

Just out of Curiosity, before I make my official reply to what Cikomyr had to say, I would like to know what the difference between an American, and a "United Stater" is.

I have been all over the world. Born in the United States, Lived in Oklahoma, Alaska, Alabama, Maryland, Texas, and Virginia. I spent from the time I was 10 to 18 in Europe. Germany to be exact. While there I visited England, Italy, Russia, France, Switzerland, Denmark, Spain, Turkey, and Greece. Then I joined the Army and spent time in Japan and Korea.

In my wide travels, I have never heard the term.... "United Stater".

Please Explain.

Please Explain.

Canadians.

travelers are very rich...

or working

Couldn't they just leave it alone and just give it the title? CMON!, it was found in 1930 by Clyde W. Tombaugh, they could of at least mercifully left it as a novelty planet.

I like it! Not dwarf planet - novelty planet!

I didn't generalized about Americans, but about United Staters. I am an american myself.

I would like to know what the difference between an American, and a "United Stater" is.

Canadians.

Well, now we are spliting hairs. If you are Canadian, you are Canadian. The best you can say is your North American, most people in the world, to the best of my knowledge would call you a Canadian, not an American. (Except for maybe other Canadians, never been there so I wouldn't know.) If that is what your Generalization meant of course. You shouldn't generalize about anyone however. Just the way I was raised I guess.

No. But because you are United Staters, it could have been possible that "since the USA decided Pluto is a planet, everybody have to fall in line".

Here, the statement that you are using is a guess. You base your gereralization on a possibility. I do not believe this so our opinions differ.

I think it's plainly wrong to have political/nationalism notions when science come into mind (and God knows there are already too much of it right now. Global Warming or Evolution jumps to mind).

Great statement here. I agree with you completely, governments should not interfere with science. They should have the option to fund scientific projects but they should not have to. They also should not have a say in what the scientist do or do not discover.

They had to define scientificly the term "planet" for the first time (drawn the line), and it would have pained my that they made an exception to Pluto simply because it was the only planet discovered by a man born in U.S.A.

I disagree. They did not have to, they wanted to. Why? Everyone in the world has lived with the idea that Pluto is a planet. Why change it now? Let me ask you this, what difference does it really make? None in my opinion. I feel they could have been doing something so much more productive with the amount of money they were being paid. Sounds to me like these astronomers wanted to make a name for themselves. Remember, Pluto was discovered by an astronomer, not just a "United Stater".

You are right, if India had discovered their own planet, they would have lobbied for it's planet status too. That kind of attitude would not had any higher moral level. Now, what makes USA different? You could have won.

If we are as bad as everyone says we are, and as all powerful. Why didn't we win? Because Americans are also part of the IAU. If we wanted to make such a big deal over this, world wide, we could have. For crying out loud, if we lobbied as hard as you think we did, why did I not hear anything about it till the day they decided? I work just 5 miles from the white house in Washington DC and listen to News/Talk Radio on a daily basis. Never heard anyone say word one about it till it was all over.

Often, in recent time, we have seen the U.S.A. take a stance not approved by the rest of the world. The country (and I'm not talking about it's citizen.

Why do we need to conform to what anyone thinks or do what they want us to do? We are after all our own country. Just as Canada is. The UN is a joke in my opinion. So many countries come to us and ask us for help, most are grateful, others not so much. World Politics suck. Truly needed but still sucks. Do I agree with everything the US Government does? No, but I am still an American.

I am happy the next step wasn't "Pluto is a planet, period."

Your choice and your opinion. I respect that and it is good that we can all speak our minds when we so choose. Again I ask you though.... Who really cares in the end? No one ever said a word about Pluto for the last 75 or so years, was just an obscure planet at the outter reaches of our galaxy that was taught in schools. You know what? In a few months, you won't hear about it again. So really what is the point?

I would like to see more planets (or dwarf planets?)/solar system myself. I wonder if it's possible to mod planets in starting solar systems?

I believe you can, but once you do the game is modded and you cannont use it in the Metaverse game.

i hate to say this this is a nice discussion and all but i think i starting to see a little hatred pooring through and this is a game feed so lets all take time out take a breath and CALM DOWN

after all we all have one thing in common and that is we all play this stupid game becouse we want to not becouse we have to

and as i said i believe it is hard coded in that you can only have 5 planets per system so you just have rename one of the sol planets 3 thru 5 pluto the other two are mars and earth

after all we all have one thing in common and that is we all play this stupid game becouse we want to not becouse we have to

STUIPID??!! This game is a work of genius!  

I AGREE i was trying to get everyones attention

I don't hate anyone, or any country for that matter. If anything I love a good debate!

You are very right indeed Mr. Danielost, we all play this game which gives us all something in common. A great game for sure!

(Be even better if they add Pluto!) <-------- Thats a joke just in case someone thinks I am serious.

I don't think anyone really addressed the reason why this subject was even debated in the first place:

2003 UB313

The distance form the sun is at Perihelion is about 37 AU (Pluto’s is about 30 AU)
(at Aphelion it is about 97 AU, Pluto’s is about 50 AU)

Needless to say it is very far out there.

The diameter is only approximate, 2400km +- 100km
Pluto is only 2306km +- 20km

That would make this new planet the same size, if not bigger, than Pluto.

2003 UB313 also has at least one moon, just like Pluto (which has 3).

The fact of the matter is, either a better standard was created to account for these smaller planets with large eccentricities and/or orbital inclinations or we start adding more planets to the solar system, because if we found Pluto and 2003 UB313 out beyond Neptune orbit (although not always beyond Neptune orbit, you know what I mean) you can be almost guaranteed that there are more out there.

(and whoever said that you don't keep something around because it has always been that way is right, otherwise the world would still be flat! (among other things))

So get over it, we have 8 planets and 3 dwarf planets in our solar system