Black Holes .

[davewhite04]

That is.

What?

 

[DaveC426913]

What?

Making a silly statement you know to be false.

 

[davewhite04]

Making a silly statement you know to be false.

How do you know I think it is false in the moment I thought of it? Are you a troll?

 

[davewhite04]

The definition of troll on wikipedia discriminates against people making mistakes. Your all trolls you just don't know it.

 

[DaveC426913]

How do you know I think it is false in the moment I thought of it? Are you a troll?

So, you're admitting that you think the sun is a planet.

 

[James R]

What is trolling?

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.

 

[davewhite04]

So, you're admitting that you think the sun is a planet.

No.

 

[davewhite04]

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.

Did you read my post?

 

[RainbowSingularity]

third hole to my planet ...

ode to the black hole sun
you are my schwarzschild radius

Upon what form of matter or energy is the essence of BH based on ?

pure essence ...

 

[DaveC426913]

Could we get back on topic please?
If DW4 wants to know bout trolling, and/or whether the sun is a planet, he can start up a new thread on it.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

the essence

pure essence ...

 

[Write4U]

The sun is not a planet.

Not by our common definition of a planet. But it is a conceptually limiting definition.
The sun does in fact follow an orbit, one of the requirement to qualify as a planet (of the Milky Way.)

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://www.universetoday.com/18028/sun-orbit/

The 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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_planet

 

[RainbowSingularity]

The sun is a moon of the milky-way galaxy orbiting a super massive black hole ?

question

2 black holes orbiting each other...
which one is mooning the other ?

pull your Event horizon up
i can see your schwarzschild radius

 

[DaveC426913]

Not by our common definition of a planet. But it is a conceptually limiting definition.

It is not conceptually limiting; it is conceptually clarifying.

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

You cannot possibly be serious about this logic.

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.

 

[Write4U]

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.

No, but clarifying that only firetrucks have wheels is limiting, you see. It leaves out a bunch of rolling stock that also uses wheels.

p.s. note I used the phrase "conceptually limiting" in reference to the only reference that planets are orbiting objects. Fact is that within the confines of the universe, "everything" is orbiting something else, from sub-atomic particles to galaxies.

I see that as conceptually expanding the concept of "being in orbit" around something else.

 

[DaveC426913]

No, but clarifying that only firetrucks have wheels is limiting, you see. It leaves out a bunch of rolling stock that also uses wheels.

Nobody said that only firetrucks have wheels.

You are confusing supersets and subsets, and are generating only confusion and ambiguity.

This is a ridiculous, argumentative digression, spun off from a troll post.

 

[Write4U]

Nobody said that only firetrucks have 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 gravity

You are confusing supersets and subsets, and are generating only confusion and ambiguity

Yes, I know. We look at things differently.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

The Sun calls out, "hey Pluto don't bother, your not in my orbit"
"im not liking the lack of specificity in your relativism" says micro black hole

 

[Janus58]

The sun is a moon of the milky-way galaxy orbiting a super massive black hole ?

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.
Using the official definition of planet:

• orbits the sun
• has sufficient mass to be round, or nearly round
• is not a satellite (moon) of another object
• has removed debris and small objects from the area around its orbit.

We could expand "orbits the Sun" to " orbits a star" to cover extra-solar planets, but even if we expand this to SMBHs, it would take the loosest definition of "orbit"* to say the Sun orbits Sagittarius A.
It fits condition 2 as it is massive enough to be round.
Condition three is a bit iffy. While the Sun doesn't orbit any other singular object( it is not within any single objects Hill sphere), it does orbit the combined mass of all the objects closer to the center of the Milky Way than it is.
Then there is condition four. If you trace out the Sun's Milky way orbit, it turns out that there are a huge number of stars that share similar orbits. In fact, right now there are numerous other objects within just a few light years of the Earth, which when compared to the Earth 27,000 light year distance from the center of its galaxy counts as the "area around its orbit". If we compare this to the average distance between asteroids as a ratio to the average orbital distance of the asteroid belt, for the same ratio, the average distance between stars in the Sun's neighborhood would need to be 67 light years. So in these terms, the local stellar neighborhood is more "crowded" than the asteroid belt is, and the "crowding" in the asteroid belt is what eliminates Ceres ( which meets every other qualification for planet), from being a planet proper.

*And contrary to what others might think, narrowing the definition for a term is not "conceptually limiting", It simply allows us to be more precise in the use of the term or label. It just means that when we use that term we are referring to this particular type of object. It does not exclude the existence of objects that don't fit into that particular definition, only that we are not referring to them when we use it.

"Loosely Goosey" "definitions" that means different things to different people are pretty useless.

 

[Write4U]

Thank you Janus58 for that excellent explanation of the definitive differences in terms.

I tend to categorize things by common denominators, rather than by what sets them apart.
This does get me in trouble once in awhile.....