There are nine planets - I don't care what astronomers say

Saiph · Aug 25, 2006

ummm...how does defining it mean we won't find any more planets? It makes it less likely...but there could still be a neptune sized object out in the kupier belt, or Oort cloud region. CE: Agreed, dwarf planet doesn't sound right, especially when it's "not a planet"....but it's in the name! It's like saying it's a dwarf bunny...but not actually a rabbit. <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>

betelgeuze · Aug 26, 2006

I dont support this new definition, like many others Im fighting for the recognition of the dwarf planets. Because of this I started a new planetology community website( www.AlphaOrionis.be ) that has 3 main cathegories; dwarf planets, terrestrial planets, and giant planets. I consider dwarf planets as important as the others.

rogerinnh · Aug 26, 2006

Under new guidelines established by the International Astronomical Union which defines the basic requirements for an astronomical object to be considered a planet, Pluto is now no longer a planet. Instead, it falls into the category of "Dwarf Planet". However, due to increasing pressure from the Politically Correct Union, the Dwarf Planet designation is being dropped and will henceforth be known as "Little People's Planets".

Saiph · Aug 26, 2006

Nobody's saying a "dwarf planet" (hate the term btw) isn't important. It's like saying a type of animal isn't important anymore, just because it's been reclassified under another genus. All this new definition does is regroup pluto with objects that are more similar to it. While the definition itself may require work, the goal and purpose are fine by me. <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>

askold · Aug 26, 2006

"Little People's Planets" How about "diametrically challenged planet"?

MeteorWayne · Aug 26, 2006

I'm opposed <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

betelgeuze · Aug 26, 2006

IAU meeting highjacked by dynamicists: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5283956.stm After the IAU: planets in trouble: http://blogs.nature.com/news/blog/2006/08/after_the_iau_planets_in_troub_1.html The 'new' solar system: http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2006/08/the_truth_earth_is_not_a_plane.html Read those! They proposed a definition that wasn't perfect but it worked(no planet definition can be perfect) but some guys felt like complaining, now we have something thats even worse. I hope they are happy! All in all I dont think this is the end of the 'planet' discussion, a lot of things are happening.

ittiz · Aug 27, 2006

Yeah I think in 3 years when the IAU meets in 2009 we will be going back and rewriting the books again. Hopefully with a more refined definition.

tfwthom · Aug 28, 2006

How about Hobbit planets? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> www.siriuslookers.org </div>

plutocrass · Aug 31, 2006

I just tell my kids, "There's mercury, venus, earth, mars, jupiter, saturn, uranus, neptune, and....the pluto family". Using the term Pluto Family seems to settle it.

MeteorWayne · Aug 31, 2006

That makes a lot of sense! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

betelgeuze · Aug 31, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />ummm...how does defining it mean we won't find any more planets? It makes it less likely...but there could still be a neptune sized object out in the kupier belt, or Oort cloud region. <hr /></blockquote> You are wrong and thats exactly my point! Jupiter sized objects in the kuiper belt or the Oort cloud wouldn't be called planets because it wouldn't have cleared its orbit. This doesn't make sense!

MeteorWayne · Aug 31, 2006

Your statement confused me. You are wrong and thats exactly my point! Jupiter sized objects in the kuiper belt or the Oort cloud wouldn't be called planets because it would have cleared its orbit. Did you mean it wouldn't be a planet since it wouldn't have cleared it's orbit, or it would be a planet since it did? In any case, I suspect (although the evidence remains to be seen) if there were a Jupiter size object in the Kuiper belt we would have spotted it by now, due to the number of searches there. However, a Jupiter sized object somewhere in the Oort cloud may have escaped detection to this point, precisely because must of the searches have been in the plane of the solar system. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

askold · Aug 31, 2006

"Lack of authority? Other astronomers have said or indicated that the IAU decision may not carry much weight." http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060831_planet_definition.html Let's just ignore the IAU. I didn't vote for them.

MeteorWayne · Aug 31, 2006

I don't understand why you are replying to my message with "lack of authority" in quotes. I never said that. You continue to confuse me with your posts. I'll search back to see if I can figure out who you were replying to. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

askold · Aug 31, 2006

Below the quoted text is a link to the site which has the text. I'm not specifically responding to your post - yours was last. I'm supplying additional information in support of the topic of the thread - ignore the astronomers.

brazilian_and_proud · Aug 31, 2006

i think that they should keep pluto and add more planets like sedna,2003 ub313,juno,etc.... it would make science even more exciting!!!!

Saiph · Aug 31, 2006

well, you're right Betelgueze. If a jupiter sized object was in the Kupier belt as we know it now, it wouldn't be a planet by this definition. However, a Jupiter sized object would clear out a swath in the kupier belt (thus it would become a planet), and since we do not see that, it is an indication that there is no such object there. I.e. slapping down a Jupiter sized object would significantly alter the dynamics of the Kupier Belt. <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>

MeteorWayne · Aug 31, 2006

welcome to SDC! However, read through the whole discussion. The objects you describe are on the border of what we all consider to be somewhere between planets or not planets. Some think they are planets, some do not. They are in the fuzzy zone in between. Much of life is not yes or no. It is in the fuzzy zone. Spend some time looking at the choices in the issue! Think, just don't say yes or no. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

JonClarke · Aug 31, 2006

There are so many problems with the clearing zone definition of planet I don't know where to start. During the early solar system the planets had not cleared out their neighbourhood. There were plenty of large bodies in the inner solar system, Earth, Mercury, and Venus all show signs of giant impacts from bodies between the size of Ceres and Mars. Uranus too shows signs of a giant impact. None of these bodies could have been classed as planets according to the current definition. What if Mercury were the size of Pluto, or even Ceres, would it be a planet? What if Pluto were the size of Mercury or even Mars? There would be no other bodies about their size, can this be considered "clearing the neighbourhood"? I really think the dynamicists are pushing their own barrow at the expense of everyone else. I am njot sure why they should have any say in the definition of a planet. It's a bit like a mineralogist wanting to define what is a star, of a chemist biological taxonomy. Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

Saiph · Aug 31, 2006

One of the problems is how it's quantified, and this wiki article discusses one way to do so. Now, if you switch planet sizes you change the dynamics. Would a pluto sized mercury be a planet? I don't know. It may, or may not, be able to significantly influence the objects in it's region. As for protesting this definition in forming star systems, this is a time of change and chaotic interactions. There will be lots of things going on, and you may not be able to clearly say what objects are planets. That's fine, but the objects are still in a proto-planet stage in your scenario. They're still deflecting, attracting, and accreting material. <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>

askold · Sep 1, 2006

More than 300 astronomers have signed a petition denounced the IAU’s new planet definition that demotes Pluto. The petition states simply: “We, as planetary scientists and astronomers, do not agree with the IAU’s definition of a planet, nor will we use it. A better definition is needed” http://www.livescience.com/blogs/author/robbritt I think we have a revolution brewing against the guys at IAU that came up with this nonsense.

JonClarke · Sep 1, 2006

There would have been many more if it had been better publised! Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

JonClarke · Sep 1, 2006

The number of objects and the rate of accreation should not be a criteria. After all, planets are still accreting mass. If you use an arbitary rate as a cut off, it's just that, arbitary. There is nothing magical about any particular number, either. The definition should work whether there are three planets or a hundred. Conversely the sphericity criterion works. it is easily measured, and can be related to a a fundamental process that separates bodies above the threshold from those below. It's just like defining stars as those bodies which can sustain, or have sustained, fusion reactions in their core. Saying that a planet must be in a primary orbit about a star is messy, but at least sticks to long established convention, so I can with this. Although I would prefer to define a planet as any non-fusing natural, astronomical body in hydrostatic equilibrium, regardless of whether it is in orbit round a star or another planet or in interstellar space. Orbits can change over time, satellites can become independent planets, or planets they can be captured, like Triton. Down with the dynamacists! Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

betelgeuze · Sep 1, 2006

Thats a good point Saiph but what if this Jupiter sized object has the same orbit as Pluto, it wouldn't be in the Kuiper Belt all the time and Im sure it wouldn't clear all of it. Also remember that technicaly Jupiter hasn't cleared its orbit. Lets replace Sedna with a Jupiter sized object. Sedna is a strange object, its not part of the Kuiper belt nor the Oort Cloud, technically with this new definition we could say that Sedna is a planet while Ceres, Pluto, Xena,... are not. The only reason why they dont say this is because Sedna is so small, but if Sedna was a giant gas planet it would be called a planet I think. But lets be more realistic and replace them with mars sized objects...

There are nine planets - I don't care what astronomers say

Saiph

Guest

betelgeuze

Guest

rogerinnh

Guest

Saiph

Guest

askold

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

betelgeuze

Guest

ittiz

Guest

tfwthom

Guest

plutocrass

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

betelgeuze

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

askold

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

askold

Guest

brazilian_and_proud

Guest

Saiph

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

Saiph

Guest

askold

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

betelgeuze

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page