No, seven, since the ancients counted the Sun and Moon as planets as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_planet
All the more reason the classical definition is of no relevance today.
Numbered planets: what method?
- Thread starter Ragitsu
- Start date
No, seven, since the ancients counted the Sun and Moon as planets as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_planet
All the more reason the classical definition is of no relevance today.
As ridiculously hot and bright as it is in Miami, I can never forget the sun.
Well, yeah. So that's rather to the point: you can't rigidly hew to old definitions when our understanding is changing.
Hah, you got me.
"I totally forgot about the sun", I do sound like an idiot don't I?
It's pretty hot and bright here in Charlotte too.
Robert
Didn't read the linked article, did you? Yes, they were counted as "wandering stars" like the planets, because those were the only seven known celestial objects that moved relative to the fixed stars. The Ptolemaic model of the Solar System put the Moon on the closest celestial sphere to Earth, then Mercury, Venus, the Sun, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, and the fixed stars.
I have no interest in reading your wikipedia link. Thank you for your exhaustive research.
I have looked at the Almagest, in the past which was why I bothered to have an opinion about what is, after all, a dead and somewhat pointless matter. The translation I have is not the best, an older one but it specifically mentions the five planets a digital copy through a university I have access to. I can't provide you a link. You'll have to find a copy. They're rather like un-pulped copies of your own non-franchise fiction, curious but hard to find.
Therefore in the Ptolemaic system, there were heavenly bodies classified in different ways, and the Sun certainly was classified differently than the moon and planets.
Now I will say this: I do not have, nor have I really read Ptolemy's "Planetary Hypotheses" but will add that there is no completely intact Greek copy known. There are translations from later Arabic copies which should be reasonably accurate. I would not expect it to deviate much from Almagest which is really the theoretical work. Hyptheses is more of a "how to." from what I gather. But it must be said, and I hope you will agree based on your wikisperience, heavenly bodies in general did not really mean the same thing to the classical pagan mind than it would have to you or I or those arabic translators. We are discussing categorization and perception. Ptolemy had a working theory, wrong but a theory, but how he chose to identify the subjects of his theory doesn't really matter. But here we are discussing it. Heavenly bodies, fixed in their movements and position, were divine.
In the end we're arguing about something stupid I was ready to drop it, but you're like a dog barking at the UPS truck. you must have the last bark. Just don't do it with wikipedia next time, oh learned one.
No matter how we classify any of this, it does not change what they are, how they relate to other things or the fact that either us will probably be plant food before the first human being sets up shop on one.
I'm out.
That is an order or a directive,a set of instructions, a method to tell whether any objects discoverd in our solar system are planets or not.
By contrast, I gave a history of the naming conventions for stars and planets in astronomy and in science fiction. Some of the posters where curious aobut how real and ficitonal planets and stars are named. I told them.
It's not an "order or directive," just a guideline agreed upon by consensus. It's the current definition being used by the IAU for its own labeling of Solar System objects. It doesn't define whether they actually "are planets or not," it just defines whether the IAU assigns that label to them or not. Descriptive labels are merely a convenience for discussion. They don't make things what they are.
And it's appreciated. Some of us are actually interested in having that discussion.
Would you have thought it acceptable if they had gone the other way and not used the term 'planet' at all in the naming of this 'dwarf planets' category but just coined a new term?
Not at all. Just say that dwarf planets are a kind of planet, along with terrestrial planets and giant planets. Simpler that way. I mean, the only reason for not calling them planets was fear of change, the reluctance to increase the number of recognized planets in the Solar System to double or even triple digits. But that's ridiculous and arbitrary. Science should embrace change. Why shouldn't there be dozens of planets in the system? I think that would be cool. What's so great about eight or nine? Why are we afraid of more? If we can remember the names of 50 states or 79 Star Trek episodes, we can remember a few dozen planets.
Personally, I'm a proponent of declaring Ceres a planet, since it's a major setting in my novel Only Superhuman (which correctly predicted that it was rich in water ice, while The Expanse erroneously guessed it would be waterless). I think that once the Asteroid Belt is settled, the inhabitants of Ceres will declare it a planet, and the same may go for Vesta, though that's more of a borderline case.
As I said in one of my posts, there is evidence that different definitions of planets are used in different eras of Star Trek.
At the present time there are five main categories of astronomical objects by size.
One) Small astronnomical objects, ranging in size from space dust to comets and asteroids and outer solar system objects and smaller moons, which are all too small for their gravity to pull into rounded shapes.
Two) Planetary mass objects, which are massive enough to be pulled into spheroidal shapes by their gravity compressing and crushing their internal materials, but not massive enough for the next categories. They can be called planemos for short. Examples in our solar system include terrestrial planets, gas giant planets, ice giant planets, plus several known dwarf planets, all orbiting the Sun, and about 20 of the largest natural satellites or moons orbiting planets, plus other objects which may be dicovered in the future.
Three) Brown dwarfs., which are at least about 13 times the mass of Jupiter or about 4,131.4 times the mass of Earth, and are massive enough to fuse deuterium for at least brief parts of their existence. Some brown dwarfs might form like planets, only more massive, and some might form like stars, only less massive. Planets can have natural satellites or moons orbiting them, and stars can planets orbiting them, so what should objects orbiting brown dwarfs be called?
Four) Stars. Stars are massive enough to fuse hydrogen into helium, and sometimes even to fuse some other elements. The minimum massfor a star, depending on its chemical composiiton, is about 75 to 80 jupiter masses or about 23,835 to 25,424 times the mass of Earth, or about 0.074 to 0.077 the mass of the Sun. Calculations indicate that the maximum possible mass of a star should be about 100 to 300 times the mass of the Sun.
Five) Supermassive black holes. Stars which end up as black holes usually eject a lot of mass and end up with black holes much less massive than the original star. So stellar black holes usually have masses between 5 and tens of times the Sun's mass. Intermediate mass black holes would have about 100 to 100,000 times the mass of the Sun. Supermassive black holes are known with masses of millions or billions of tiemes the mass of the Sun, which probably formed by swallowing and merging with many planets, stars,and black holes.
Brown dwarfs could possibly be reclassified as stars, or reclassified as planets. Possibly brown dwarfs might be divided into two categories which would then be merged into planets and into stars. Or brown dwarfs might be divided into two separate categores which would remain separate from planets and stars, making a total of six major mass categories.
I note that brown dwarfs are found in star sysems with stars or other brown dwarfs, and also found in interstellar space far from stars. There are also a number of rogue planets in interstellar space far from the nearest stars.
In Enterprise "Fight or Flight" (3 october 2001):
This shows that Earth and/or Vulcan in the era of Enterprise use definitions of planets and/of intelligent life that have recognized intelligent life on only about one in every 43,000 (0.0000232) of the astronomical objects recognized as planets. According to the definitions used by the Inernational Astronomical Union in 2022, the solar system has eight recognized planets, Because of he dificulties in discovering exoplanets, no known star has more than eight or possibly nine known exoplanets at the moment. Assuming that the average star has eight planets, only one star out of about 5,375 would have a planet that currently had intelligent life according to "Fight or Flight".
The Solar System has five objects classified as dwarf planets. Adding them to planets makes 13. If the average star has 13 planets by the Enterprise definition, one star out of every 3,307.69 would have current intelligent life in Star Trek.
In 2020 10 other objects were considered almost certainly dwarf planets, adding them would make 23 planets. with an average of 23 planets per star, one star out of 1,869.96 would hav eintelligent life. 17 more dwarf planets were considered very likely, adding them would make 40 planets. 40 planets per star would mean one star out of 1,075 would have intelligent life. There were a total 130 dwarf planet candidates ranked with varying degrees of probability. If all them become classified as planets, that will make 143. 143 planets per star would mean 1 star out of 300.6993 would have intelligent life.
19 known moons in the solar system are planetary mass objects or planemos. Counting them as planets along with 5 to 130 possible dwarf planets would make a total of 32 to 162 planets. If the average star has 32 to 162 planets, one star in 265.432 to 1,343.75 would have intelligen tlfe.
And there are brown dwarfs and rogue planetary mass objects floating in intersellar space, objects which formed there or were ejected from the star systems in which they formed. Those interstellar objects might be detected and classified as planets according to the definition used in the era of Enterprise, and so contribute to the figure of 43,000 planets for every planet with intelligent life.
So if there are an average of 100 objects classified as planets per star in Enterprise, one star out of 430 would have a planet with intelligent life. If there are 200 planets for each star, one star out of 215 would have a planet with intelligent life. If there are 500 planets for each star, one star ouf of 86 would have a planet with intelligent life. If there are 1,000 planets for each star, one star ouf of 43 would have a planet with intelligent life. And so on.
So when Rick Berman and Brannon Braga wrote "Fight or Flight" they obviously had no idea of how many stars close to the Sun had planets with intelligent life according to earlier productions, or how much their figure of one planet in every 43,000 having intelligent life clashed with what was previously established.
In the neighborhood of the Sun, the density of stars is 0.004 per cubic light year, or 0.14 per cubic parsec. So there should about 43,000 stars in a sphere with a radius of 273.8 light years or 83.71 parsecs.
If there is one planet for each star, there would be only one panet with intelligent life within a radius of 273.8 light years or 83.7. parsecs If there are ten planets for each star, there should be ten planets with intelligent life within a radius of 273.8 light years or 83.7 parsecs. If there are 100 planets for each star, there would be only 100 planets with intelligent life within a radius of 273.8 light years or 83.7 parsecs. If there are 1,000 planets for each star, there should be 1,000 planets with intelligent life within a radius of 273.8 light years or 83.7 parsecs.
So if there were 1,000 planets for each star, there would be 1 planet with intelligent life within a radius of 27.38 light years or 8.37 parsecs.
Here is a link to Wikipedia's list of the 92 brightest stars (as seen from Earth). It can be sorted by distance from Earth in light years. Note how many of them which are less than 273.8 light years from Earth are said, according to their proper names or Bayer designations, to have intelligent life in various Star Trek productions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_brightest_stars#Table
And note how many planets the Sol sytem is said to have in in the TOS episode "The Changeling". The chart show nine and only nine planets in orbit around the Sun, not tens or hundreds of dwarf planets in orbit.
That certainly indicates the use of a much more restricted definiton of planets in TOS than in Enterprise.
Last edited:
Of course, because that was the assumption of the makers of the TV episode at the time. But they also assumed that "women are more easily and more deeply terrified, generating more sheer horror than the male of the species" ("Wolf in the Fold"). We're under no obligation to be bound by outdated assumptions in decades-old episodes. A newer episode would probably depict the Solar System in terms more consistent with present-day understandings, which might seem just as obsolete to viewers 55 years from now. That's how long-running science fiction series usually work -- they update to stay current with the latest science, even when it creates inconsistencies with past stories. It's always the prerogative of fiction to improve itself as it goes. Sometimes you just have to accept that an earlier installment contained mistakes in its depiction of events.
That seems like a fairly reasonable assumption. For thousands of generations the males had the job of going out and hunting, and thus looking for trouble, while the females had the job of gathering plant food which couldn't fight back closer to home with less proabilityof encountering large predators. Thus women would have less evolutionary pressure to develop bravery and/or stupidity enough to face their daily tasks.
And have you ever conducted tests on thousands of subjects of each gender to see how easy it was to terrify them? I suspect that such possibly illegal tests would indicate that on the average females might be somewhat easier to scare than males.
I note that humans in general, males and females, seem too easy to scare with harmless pranks, and on the other hand, seem too willing to try dangerous things without worrying about the risks.
I note that in "Fight or Flight" Berman and Braga sort of implied that in the era of Enterprise a much more inclusive definiton of planet was used than would be used in the era of TOS. But I strongly doubt that they did that consciously since I doubt that that were familiar enough with the distances to various stars mentiend as having intelligent life in various Star Trek productions.
I also note that if in the era of Enterprise there are hundreds of objects classified as planets for each star, the question becomes what percentage of those planets orbit stars and what percentabe of those planets are rogues in interstellar space, all presumably too cold for liquid water using life - or maybe not..
So what is the highest number that planet has in Star Trek? I think that the highest planetary number in TOS is in "Tomorrow is Yesterday".
And if an average star in TOS had tens or hundrds of objects orbiting it that were called planets, wouldn't sometimes a planet Hades XV or Tartarus XXXI, or Nifhelheim LXVI be mentioned?
Possibly most of the human habitable worlds that the Federation has much contact with would be fairly close to their stars, and so would have fairly low planetary numbers. And of course the farther a planet is from its star, the more likely it is to be composed of ices as well as rock, and the less common heavy elements would be on it. So maybe all the planets with mining colonies also have low planetary number.
But there seems to be strong evidence that in TOS a much more restrictive definition of planets is used than in Enterprise.
That's misogynistic crap, and I'm not going to talk to you anymore.
For thousands of generations, the women had the job of hosting and delivering a bowling ball through the thighs without anaesthesia. They also bled profusely and suffered cramps without relief every single month. They dealt with crises like food creation and distribution constantly. And they were as likely to be hazarded by carnivores and rapacious men as males (let's be honest -- more so).
Men, on the other hand, had the rather leisurely role of wandering in the brush and occasionally throwing spears at game, which mostly ran away until too tired to do that anymore.
Thus, men would have less evolutionary pressure to develop bravery and/or stupidity enough to face their daily tasks.
There hasn't been a huge number of studies on this matter, but from what recall from one I read a while back, while women do indeed report being scared in response to traditionally frightening stimuli (spiders, insect swarms, heights, cramped enclosed spaces, total darkness, needles, flying, rats, snakes, horror movie jump scares, etc.) more often than men do, when measured physiologically (heart rate, BP, breathing rate, pupil dilation from adrenaline, etc.), their responses are no different from men's responses. The difference comes from the fact that men are less likely to honestly report that they were scared, for fear of looking weak.
So women are no more or less scared than men by a given situation, they're just more likely to tell you the truth about it because they generally are less afraid of showing vulnerability and don't irrationally consider it a weakness to show fear because of years of ingrained male machismo.
Last edited:
My friend, Tam, is a martial artist and adventurer. And when you get him in the room with a spider, he's a squalling baby.
The other day, I (a male-type person) was on a pier looking at an interesting boat, and a sealion barked at me from about five feet away. I hadn't seen it. My wife can attest that my normally baritone voice went an octave above falsetto.
She, on the other hand, gave birth without anesthesia. On pitocin. Anecdotal? Sure. But it's the data points I got.
Similar threads
