davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
That is.
What?
That is.
Making a silly statement you know to be false.What?
How do you know I think it is false in the moment I thought of it? Are you a troll?Making a silly statement you know to be false.
So, you're admitting that you think the sun is a planet.How do you know I think it is false in the moment I thought of it? Are you a troll?
Read our site rules. There's a section that explains it. You can find the rules in a sticky thread in the Site Feedback subforum.What is trolling?
No.So, you're admitting that you think the sun is a planet.
Did you read my post?Read our site rules. There's a section that explains it. You can find the rules in a sticky thread in the Site Feedback subforum.
Are you telling us that you seriously think/thought the sun was a planet? Define "planet" for me, please.
Upon what form of matter or energy is the essence of BH based on ?
the essence
pure essence ...
Not by our common definition of a planet. But it is a conceptually limiting definition.The sun is not a planet.
https://www.universetoday.com/18028/sun-orbit/Sun Orbit,
Everything’s orbiting something it seems. The Moon goes around the Earth, and the Earth orbits the Sun. But did you know that the Sun orbits the Milky Way galaxy?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_planetThe definition of planet, since the word was coined by the ancient Greeks, has included within its scope a wide range of celestial bodies. Greek astronomersemployed the term asteres planetai (ἀστέρες πλανῆται), "wandering stars", for star-like objects which apparently moved over the sky. Over the millennia, the term has included a variety of different objects, from the Sun and the Moon to satellites and asteroids.
It is not conceptually limiting; it is conceptually clarifying.Not by our common definition of a planet. But it is a conceptually limiting definition.
You cannot possibly be serious about this logic.The sun does in fact follow an orbit, one of the requirement to qualify as a planet (of the Milky Way.) https://www.universetoday.com/18028/sun-orbit/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_planet
No, but clarifying that only firetrucks have wheels is limiting, you see. It leaves out a bunch of rolling stock that also uses wheels.A firetruck has wheels.
An office chair also has wheels.
Therefore, it is conceptually limiting to make a distinction between two things that both have wheels.
Nobody said that only firetrucks have wheels.No, but clarifying that only firetrucks have wheels is limiting, you see. It leaves out a bunch of rolling stock that also uses wheels.
In effect yes, you did say that only planets orbit stars. Attaching orbital motion of planets around stars is limiting, IMO. Everything revolves around other things, its a basic universal phenomenon that explains gravityNobody said that only firetrucks have wheels.
Yes, I know. We look at things differently.You are confusing supersets and subsets, and are generating only confusion and ambiguity
Not in the sense that the SMBH gravitational dominates or even is really significant when it comes to that orbit. Except for those few stars really close in to the SMBH, the main source of gravity determining stellar orbits is the combined mass of all the stars, etc closer to the center of the galaxy than the orbit. Remove the SMBH at the center of our galaxy and you would be hard pressed to notice any difference in the Sun's path through the Milky Way.The sun is a moon of the milky-way galaxy orbiting a super massive black hole ?
![]()