• Happy holidays, explorers! Thanks to each and every one of you for being part of the Space.com community!

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

Page 2 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Saiph

Guest
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.<br /><br /><br />CE: Agreed, dwarf planet doesn't sound right, especially when it's "not a planet"....but it's in the name!<br /><br />It's like saying it's a dwarf bunny...but not actually a rabbit. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"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" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
B

betelgeuze

Guest
I dont support this new definition, like many others Im fighting for the recognition of the dwarf planets.<br /><br />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. <br /><br /><br />
 
R

rogerinnh

Guest
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".<br /><br />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".
 
S

Saiph

Guest
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.<br /><br />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"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"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" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
A

askold

Guest
"Little People's Planets"<br /><br />How about "diametrically challenged planet"?
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
I'm opposed <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
B

betelgeuze

Guest
IAU meeting highjacked by dynamicists:<br />http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5283956.stm<br /><br />After the IAU: planets in trouble:<br />http://blogs.nature.com/news/blog/2006/08/after_the_iau_planets_in_troub_1.html<br /><br />The 'new' solar system:<br />http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2006/08/the_truth_earth_is_not_a_plane.html<br /><br /><br />Read those!<br /><br /><br /><br />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!<br /><br />All in all I dont think this is the end of the 'planet' discussion, a lot of things are happening.<br /><br />
 
I

ittiz

Guest
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.
 
P

plutocrass

Guest
I just tell my kids, "There's mercury, venus, earth, mars, jupiter, saturn, uranus, neptune, and....the pluto family". <br /><br />Using the term <font color="yellow">Pluto Family</font> seems to settle it.
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
That makes a lot of sense! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
B

betelgeuze

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>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. <p><hr /></p></p></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.<br /><br />This doesn't make sense!<br /><br />
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Your statement confused me.<br /><font color="yellow">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. </font><br />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?<br />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.<br />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"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
I don't understand why you are replying to my message with "lack of authority" in quotes. I never said that.<br /><br />You continue to confuse me with your posts.<br /><br />I'll search back to see if I can figure out who you were replying to. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
A

askold

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

brazilian_and_proud

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

Saiph

Guest
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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />I.e. slapping down a Jupiter sized object would significantly alter the dynamics of the Kupier Belt. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"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" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
welcome to SDC!<br />However, read through the whole discussion.<br />The objects you describe are on the border of what we <b>all </b> consider to be somewhere between planets or not planets.<br />Some think they are planets, some do not.<br />They are in the fuzzy zone in between.<br />Much of life is not yes or no. It is in the fuzzy zone.<br />Spend some time looking at the choices in the issue!<br />Think, just don't say yes or no. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
There are so many problems with the clearing zone definition of planet I don't know where to start. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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"?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>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</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
 
S

Saiph

Guest
One of the problems is how it's quantified, and this wiki article discusses one way to do so.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"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" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
A

askold

Guest
More than 300 astronomers have signed a petition denounced the IAU’s new planet definition that demotes Pluto. The petition states simply:<br /><br />“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”<br /><br />http://www.livescience.com/blogs/author/robbritt<br /><br />I think we have a revolution brewing against the guys at IAU that came up with this nonsense.
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
There would have been many more if it had been better publised! <br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>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</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
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. <br /><br />There is nothing magical about any particular number, either. The definition should work whether there are three planets or a hundred.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Down with the dynamacists! <br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>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</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
 
B

betelgeuze

Guest
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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><br />But lets be more realistic and replace them with mars sized objects...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts