edit: erased half of the postit's always a bad idea to change something you have started once.i just like to remember all of our "wrong" looking at a electrical circuit or flow, we say "positive to negative", this because a long tome ago it was set to this.in fact it works vice versa "negative to positive" (by looking at how it works in reality and using still the same old definition) as we found out a century later, now it has kept "wrong", why?very simple to answer, to avoid confusion. to calculate the results of a circuit, to build one from scratch, it won't matter, so decision was clear, we leave it "wrong".(erm a problem i had already with the mirroring of the texture, "right" or "wrong" won't matter, but to change a started system is not clever. in other words "-1" or "+1" doesn't matters the value is "1". perhaps a example from geometry, how i look at a sphere, if i look at the sphere from outside or if i turn it insideout, has i.e. no influence on the surface that results of).i'm really begging to leave such changes in future, it doesn't matters how i look at it, "right" or "wrong" doesn't exists in such a case.you should have heard my father when it came to such... he could have going wild about such things, most used sentence of him: "never change a running system!". such things has cost his health in the end, he took everything far to serious, it went to his mind and finally into his body. it's i guess for people like him not to see why, if there is no logical reason it shouldn't be done, never, no matter what it is, not easy to live sometimes with such a father, believe me, but well he was ALWAYS right, like a god or something. even if you didn't agreed with him, inside you knew "damned he's right". one could guess now such a man has no fun, no that's not true, fun to him was to read the "Funkschau" and he loved "Bud Spencer & Terence Hill", he disliked sci-fi and StarTrek most of all, it was to constructed, to artificial for him, and a little bit of to american, all this "gutmenschen". perhaps something he never really understood, therefore i understand him welli noticed this slight change in the ship specs, all values are positive now, i have personally no problem with that, i have to say that i thought about this the first time i ever looked at them, but hmm, that's exactly the point, i never would have changed it. it doesn't matters so why change it? the only thing that results of: i have to change all my models ship specs now.to me that's like one excavates a hole and the other shuffels the dirt back in the hole, ok, we can have work our whole life if we do so.should i tell you what my father would have said?imagine it for yourself.that shouldn't mean i'm never wrong: "errare humanum est", i take it with a broad smile.:mass(f(15,100000)) - checked, ok, equals to 0.00015, with earth as reference body (1,1),however it should result in 0.028 m/s^2, depending on wikipediaby looking at the data it confuses me, i know ceres is "heavy", but still i'm not sure, i will use more different sources to see if the data in wikipedia is proper.---:radius(f(76,1000)) - checked, is near to ok, 74,1000 as i calculated it now (this time i took the mean radius instead of the aequatorial)the rest of the data is also accurateplease help!---@brianetta, that's what i always say, nothing is engraved in stone in case for astronomy <img src="'[url]http://spacesimcentral.com/forum/public/style_emoticons//wink3.gif[/url] class='bbc_emoticon' alt=';)' />
Quote: Ceres und die PlanetendefinitionWie oben bereits erwähnt wurde, wurde Ceres zunächst als Planet, später dann als Pluto, Transneptun Eris und auch Ceres zunächst zu den Planeten "befördert". Zu Recht, so die Meinung des Autors. Ceres ist ja, wie oben gezeigt wurde, höchstwahrscheinlich in seinem Inneren differenziert und annähernd kugelförmig. Also weist sie prinzipiell alle Eigenschaften von klassischen Planeten auf.Lediglich die Tatsache, dass Ceres ihre Umgebung nicht gravitativ von anderen Asteroiden gesäubert hat, kostete ihr den Planetenstatus. Ceres war also nur wenige Tage lang der fünfte Planet.In wieweit geologische Aspekte in eine sinnvolle Planetendefinition einfließen sollten, soll hier nicht näher diskutiert werden.
but also,
Quote:
Ceres is located in the asteroid belt between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter. It was discovered in 1801, well before Pluto and 45 years before Neptune. Ceres was considered a planet for around 50 years before being reclassified as an asteroid and once again in 2006 as a dwarf planet.
if you would ask me, stop this hick hack, it's always the same problem, it has something to do with egoism i think, one says this one that, once assumed this once that next time this. "i have more right as you", already newton has gone wild about such "they are not interested in science, they are only interested in blowing up their ego".after all, does that matter if Ceres is a planet, asteroid or planetoid, NO, Ceres minds a shit about that and he simply exists <img src="'[url]http://spacesimcentral.com/forum/public/style_emoticons//wink3.gif[/url] class='bbc_emoticon' alt=';)' />if you understand what i like to say, it didn't gets us a tiny bit closer to the facts, asteroid or planetoid or planet, that's not the matter.it's always OUR VIEW TO THE FACTS, sometimes i guess even scientists act like "kindergarten".a lot of hot air, or "Much Ado about Nothing"astronomy is unlike other sciences, i guess that's the reason why there are still a lot of blown up characters in this science, it's easy, resp. not so easy to make proof of as for other sciences.if a surgeon makes a error, well you will notice this, if a astronomer tells the "blue from the sky" (this is gonna give me the blues, lol), who can make it proof?