12 Planets! Possibly 100s...

[Syf]

I was looking around on the web for real science news, and here's something I missed. This is actually old news, as this was last year. I myself either missed it, or forgot about it.



The tally of planets in our solar system would jump instantly to a dozen under a highly controversial new definition proposed by the International Astronomical Union (IAU).

Eventually there would be hundreds as more round objects are found beyond Neptune.

The proposal, which sources tell SPACE.com is gaining broad support, tries to plug a big gap in astronomy textbooks, which have never had a definition for the word "planet." It addresses discoveries of Pluto-sized worlds that have in recent years pitched astronomers into heated debates over terminology.



http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2006/08/16/nine_no_longer_panel_declares_12_planets/

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060816_planet_definition.html

Here's the day after news.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060817_planet_support.html

Now, the question I have is what do you (MSFC member) think defines as a planet?

I myself think 12 is a little high. As stated here -

The definition entirely misses the key element of a solar system object, namely its role in the formation of the solar system," Charbonneau said. "There are eight fully formed planets. The other objects-Ceres, Pluto, Charon, [2003 UB313], and hundreds of thousands of others, are the fascinating byproducts of the formation of these eight planets."

I think Pluto should be left on the map as a planet, just because it's been there for so long in the schools. But it needs to be redefined as "An example" of "post planetary development" Such objects should be called "planetoids" or something similar.

So, What do you think?

[Aerilon]

I read this somewhere... and laughed.

The fact that they suddenly decide that Pluto isn't a planet, and then they believe they are finding several other 'planets' seems to be a joke. I find it ironic that they can find other planets that are lightyears away, yet they can't seem to count the ones closer to home.

[Syf]

It's common knowledge now days that science believes Pluto is an "aftermath" object. Formed after the bigger planets, including ours were formed.

Your right, it is strange that they can map other stars but don't want to look around our own star system. I would love to see the researchers go for mapping all objects in our star system. It would be very helpful too.

[Ryan]

I think the problem seems to be, that they don't look at the ends of our solar system because nothing interesting really exists there, just big rocks.

[Syf]

Politics would agree. But real science and the military would disagree. There's all kinds of fascinating things for us right here in our own back yard.

[Kosh Naranek]

In my honest opinion, there are countless planets in our solar system. There's the classic nine, all the asteroids, comets, and other objects that orbit the sun, the moons, and so on. A planet, by definition, is one celestial body that orbits around another. Thus, everything I listed fits.

[Borg_Queen]

Hmm, reviving this thread. :p

Now it has been decided that Pluto don't qualify as a planet, but is a dwarf-planet at best. Now I don't remember what criteria it didn't meet to be called a planet, so I'll leave Pluto out for this post from this point.

Kosh, if we go by your definition of a planet, that it's a stellar object that orbits another; Then you even classified our own sun as a planet. Why? The reason is that even our own sun goes in orbit, though it goes in orbit around the center of our galaxy and the orbit takes several millions years to complete. And you do well agree that our own sun, as well as any other stars, aren't planets?

Now, for what I've heard is the definition of a planet (the old definition), is that it's a stellar object that orbits a star (or stars, depending of the solar system have more than one or not) and is big enough to have a circular shape. A planet also is not orbiting another stellar object that orbits the star/s. The definition of a moon is a stellar object that orbits a planet, and the typical moon is also circular in shape.

Asteroids and comets are stellar objects not big enough to be planets (they have no circular shape), and they usually orbits the star/s as well, though they sometimes are caught in the gravity of a planet and either crash into it or becomes it's moon (think Mars as Mars' two moons are in fact asteroids).

The difference between an asteroid an a comet is easy, though I can say comets are dirty snowballs (that is what they're called by astronomers very often) as they are black (believe it or not) from space dust and radiation of the sun as well as they are mostly ice. They get that distinctive tail/coma then they get near enough to the sun.
Asteroids also contain ice, but are mostly rock and other metals like iron, and the ice is locked inside them instead of being on the outside.

[Atlantis]

Ah, but is the Sun orbiting another object?

The galaxy itself is a collection of objects, but at the centre, it's not been concluded as to whether there's an OBJECT there, or if all the stars are just orbiting a common centre of gravity...

[Borg_Queen]

Ah, but is the Sun orbiting another object?

The galaxy itself is a collection of objects, but at the centre, it's not been concluded as to whether there's an OBJECT there, or if all the stars are just orbiting a common centre of gravity...

There is an object at the center of the galaxy, namely a massive black hole. That has been proven the last few years as the black hole has "flared". :wink: