Tenth Planet

termite · Jul 29, 2005

NASA Scientists Discover Tenth Planet

yurkin · Jul 29, 2005

Already a post on this.

gregoire · Jul 29, 2005

Different object. Amazing isn't it? Two discoveries of large KBO's announced in one day.

yurkin · Jul 29, 2005

My apologies. But wow this is big news.

lunatio_gordin · Jul 29, 2005

wow. Then, what, do we actually count these two as planets? wouldn't this place more in the size area of our moon or mercury?

tom_hobbes · Jul 30, 2005

I think it is the same object, but it has been discovered independently by both groups of astronomers. But more was to come. After Williams put out a notice of the new object and its orbit the evening of 28 July, Mike Brown of Caltech in California, US, said his group had discovered the same object in 2004 - and in January 2005 had spotted a moon orbiting it using the Keck Observatory in Hawaii. Brown had not made his findings public because he was waiting for infrared data from the Spitzer Space Telescope, which he could use to calculate how much visible light 2003 EL61 reflected. That would allow him to calculate its size more precisely. http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/dn7758-new-solar-system-world-has-a-moon.html <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I wish I could remember But my selective memory Won't let me - Mark Oliver Everett </div>

Philotas · Jul 30, 2005

No it isn`t. The one IS bigger than Pluto, while the other one might be bigger than Pluto. Read these articles: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/050729_large_object.html and http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/050729_new_planet.html Very exciting indeed. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

grooble · Jul 30, 2005

So there could be 11 planets now? What bout that sedna place?

tom_hobbes · Jul 30, 2005

Perhaps I'm wrong, although the article I quoted also points out that until the last day or two it was thought to be bigger than pluto but in fact it is 70% of the mass of pluto. In any case the confusion will soon sort itself out. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I wish I could remember But my selective memory Won't let me - Mark Oliver Everett </div>

jtkirk1701 · Jul 30, 2005

i understand that there are 4 planets or planetoids. where can i get a map of our solar system with all 13 planets and there orbits???

thechemist · Jul 30, 2005

My guess is Brown was taken by surprise by the spanish guys over the small one, and hurried to announce the "10th planet" before someone else does ! What an astronomical mess <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I feel better than James Brown. </div>

claerwen · Jul 30, 2005

If we are reasonable, we'll use this discovery to finally get it right - there are 8 planets and a multitude of KBO's. But I'm not hopeful, the world - and even scientists - can be pretty dogmatic about this kind of thing.

robnissen · Jul 30, 2005

It is amaing that these two objects were announced within 24 hours of each other. But I am astounded that this "planet" wasn't discovered sooner. Apparently, anyone with a backyard telescope can see it. The article states that it wasn't discovered sooner because its not in the elliptic, but jeez, with the inclination of Pluto, it seems rather obvious that other large KBOs would not be in the elliptic, and yet noone bothered to check?? I also find this part of the article interesting: that "Brown himself has argued in the past for Pluto's demotion from planet status, because of its diminutive size and eccentric and inclined orbit." Shockingly, now that he has discovered something Pluto-Sized, he suddenly decides that anything as big as Pluto should be a planet.

claerwen · Jul 30, 2005

Forgive me, I'm not trying to be a smart ass. It's "ecliptic".

cuddlyrocket · Jul 30, 2005

Well yes, being the discoverer of the 10th planet is a lot more status enhancing than being the discover of the nth Kuiper belt object.

paleo · Jul 30, 2005

This object is what it is. Whether it's called a planet or not has no scientific relevency. The arbitrary classification doesn't change one iota the reality of objects orbiting a star. Calling it a 'planet' is more of a cultural decision than a scientific one.

lunatio_gordin · Jul 30, 2005

yeah. "The briefing was hastily arranged after Brown received word that a secure Web site containing the discovery was hacked and the hacker threatened to release the information." Wow. that's pretty unexpected. crazy.

gavino · Jul 30, 2005

"So there could be 11 planets now? What bout that sedna place?" Right now there 10 by the laws the planets. Scientists will still fight over this as the always do. Sedna is not bigger than Pluto. A object has to be bigger than Pluto to be a planet. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> gavinovz </div>

spayss · Jul 30, 2005

Astronomers are less likely to fight over this being a planet than those of us on this board. There's a bit of discussion now and then but not much to do with science.

robnissen · Jul 30, 2005

While I agree that anything smaller than Pluto should not be a planet, and I agree that if Pluto is a planet, there is a decent argument that this new object should be a planet, I don't think that Pluto should be a planet. The main problem with Pluto is not its small size, or its inclined orbit, the main problem is that there are probably just too many Pluto's out there. There is speculation that there could be hundreds of "planets" larger than Pluto in the KB. Currently there are 8 planets orbiting in the ecliptic, 4 rocky planets and 4 gas giants. Pluto's diameter is less than 1/2 the size of the next smallest (Mercury), its orbit is different, its composition appears to be different, and its origen may be different. Due to a historical mistake, we can keep Pluto as a planet if we must, but lets not compound the error by adding to our historical mistake by naming more objects with Pluto characteristics as planets.

silylene old · Jul 30, 2005

from my opst in the other thread on the definition of a planet: 1) A planet circles a star or stars. If it does circle another planet, it is also considered a planet if the barycenter is above the surface of both objects ('double planets'). 2) The maximum mass is below the threshold to sustain deuterium fusion, which is about 13x mass of Jupiter. 3) A planet's is largely composed of 'normal' matter. It is not a mini-black hole, nor a mini neutron-object, etc. (not that any of these are possible anyways). This is actually a tough definition, for as the mass exceeds about 2x Jupiter, Coulombic forces between atoms in the object core will be inadequate to prevent atomic nuclei from compressing enough to form "electron degenerate matter" (when electron degeneracy pressure exceeds coulonbic repulsion). Adding additional mass to an object between 2x Jupiter and 13x Jupiter actually makes the object's radius get smaller due to forming additional electron degenerate matter in the core. As a result, masses between 2x Jupiter and 13x Jupiter are partially composed of not 'normal' matter. 4) A planet has enough mass to gravitationally assume a spherical or ellipsoidal shape. 5) A planet is at least as big as Pluto. This is arbitrary and controversial, and is a 'cultural' definition. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center">I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function. </div> </div>

Philotas · Jul 30, 2005

"the main problem is that there are probably just too many Pluto's out there. There is speculation that there could be hundreds of "planets" larger than Pluto in the KB. " Well, what`s wrong with having hundreds of planets? I think people are only afraid of having to learn all these names

spayss · Jul 30, 2005

"I think people are only afraid of having to learn all these names". True: And the Final Jeopardy topic is: planets starting with the letter A.

joelpicon · Jul 30, 2005

hey i really think that we should analyse this information of the tenth planet more carefully we must know everything we can to determined if this is a planet or not???

Saiph · Jul 30, 2005

Even if it's like pluto, it will likely be classed as a KBO, not a planet. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

Tenth Planet

termite

Guest

yurkin

Guest

gregoire

Guest

yurkin

Guest

lunatio_gordin

Guest

tom_hobbes

Guest

Philotas

Guest

grooble

Guest

tom_hobbes

Guest

jtkirk1701

Guest

thechemist

Guest

claerwen

Guest

robnissen

Guest

claerwen

Guest

cuddlyrocket

Guest

paleo

Guest

lunatio_gordin

Guest

gavino

Guest

spayss

Guest

robnissen

Guest

silylene old

Guest

Philotas

Guest

spayss

Guest

joelpicon

Guest

Saiph

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page