It would all really depend.
As it is under scrutiny as to whether Pluto is a planet or merely a body of the Kuiper belt, I suspect that if Pluto was classified as a Kuiper Belt object rather than a planet, then the other proposed planets wouldn't make it far either, as, by the looks of it in that diagram, the other planets are smaller than Pluto.
we are going to for 8 planets rather than 9
how can a planet be in the meteor belt?
it cant, they are to small there
Zelos, you are now about to be made officially wrong. If the proposed changes to planetary definition are approved then Ceres, most definitely a member of the asteroid belt, will qualify as a planet.
Charon, UBwhatever and Ceres are all upgraded to planets.
SAY WHAT?
Last i heard they were planning removing plutos offical planet status. when did that happen? Oh well, didnt know that, just have one thing to say:
Well i be damn
The meeting is underway at present, or is just wrapping up. I haven't checked on it for a couple of days.
The proposals are controversial, so they may not get the vote when put to the full assembly.
so technical im not wrong
but it can change
keep us updated
I think that the definition of "planet" should include something about having an atmosphere. I think to be called a planet, it needs to have an atmosphere.
Having an atmosphere? That makes it MORE complicated. Mercury has no atmosphere, but it's been considered a planet for as long as we've had planets. Titan has an atmosphere, but it orbits Saturn. If I remember correctly, as Pluto moves through its orbit, at the hotter times, the frozen whatever melts and forms a small atmosphere around Pluto, but it doesn't have one all the time because it's too cold.
Clearly, an atmosphere shouldn't enter into the equation, as Mercury is too far in and Pluto is too far out, and both are usually considered planets.
i think size should only matter
size? how about mass O.o?
Enough of the idle speculation. Here is the draft proposal:
Draft Resolution 5 for GA-XXVI: Definition of a Planet
Contemporary observations are changing our understanding of the Solar System, and it is important that our nomenclature for objects reflect our current understanding. This applies, in particular, to the designation "planets". The word "planet" originally described "wanderers" that were known only as moving lights in the sky. Recent discoveries force us to create a new definition, which we can make using currently available scientific information. (Here we are not concerned with the upper boundary between "planet" and "star".)
The IAU therefore resolves that planets and other Solar System bodies be defined in the following way:
(1) A planet is a celestial body that (a) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape 1, and (b) is in orbit around a star, and is neither a star nor a satellite of a planet.2
(2) We distinguish between the eight classical planets discovered before 1900, which move in nearly circular orbits close to the ecliptic plane, and other planetary objects in orbit around the Sun. All of these other objects are smaller than Mercury. We recognize that Ceres is a planet by the above scientific definition. For historical reasons, one may choose to distinguish Ceres from the classical planets by referring to it as a "dwarf planet."3
(3) We recognize Pluto to be a planet by the above scientific definition, as are one or more recently discovered large Trans-Neptunian Objects. In contrast to the classical planets, these objects typically have highly inclined orbits with large eccentricities and orbital periods in excess of 200 years. We designate this category of planetary objects, of which Pluto is the prototype, as a new class that we call "plutons".
(4) All non-planet objects orbiting the Sun shall be referred to collectively as "Small Solar System Bodies".4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 This generally applies to objects with mass above 5 x 1020 kg and diameter greater than 800 km. An IAU process will be established to evaluate planet candidates near this boundary.
2 For two or more objects comprising a multiple object system, the primary object is designated a planet if it independently satisfies the conditions above. A secondary object satisfying these conditions is also designated a planet if the system barycentre resides outside the primary. Secondary objects not satisfying these criteria are "satellites". Under this definition, Pluto's companion Charon is a planet, making Pluto-Charon a double planet.
3 If Pallas, Vesta, and/or Hygeia are found to be in hydrostatic equilibrium, they are also planets, and may be referred to as "dwarf planets".
4 This class currently includes most of the Solar System asteroids, near-Earth objects (NEOs), Mars-, Jupiter- and Neptune-Trojan asteroids, most Centaurs, most Trans-Neptunian Objects (TNOs), and comets. In the new nomenclature the concept "minor planet" is not used.
Interesting. That means that anything orbiting Sun, roundish in shape, and bigger than 800 km in diameter is considered a planet? Even if it's part of the ateroid belt?
If the proposals are ratified. The vote is next week sometime.
thank you ophiolite for the clarifycation
We got some planets to be discovered! All we have to do is look a bit more into the asteroid belt and I bet you that there are going to be some "planets".
Sounds like my last girlfriend. <rimshot>Originally Posted by The P-manator
If there are other planet-type objects to be discovered, don't they usually allow the person who discovers it to name it? If you were the lucky one who discovered it, what would you name the new planet?
First off they should make some rules about naming...to prevent another "Uranus" fiasco...and the 1000's of "rear-related" jokes that go with it. I personally think they should rename Uranus to something a little less offensive......like....Urbuthol.
If I were the one naming the new planet...I'd name it "Where"...just so you could do the old "who's on first" routine
RocketScientist A: "I'm going to send a rocket to Where."
RocketScientist B: "I don't know where...you tell me"
It be loads of fun.
We need to build a death star, so we can destroy those inconvenient heavenly bodies.
-Is it a planet or is it not?
-No matter, it is no more.
Fortunately, they came to their senses and allowed there to be more than nine planets.
lol asteroid belt can have 2 or more planets because thats a large junk from the sun since the sun is created
Ceres is the only asteroid which is circular in shape. Therefore, under this new planet defining convention only Ceres, from the asteroid belt, can be considered a planet.
Some already discovered TNOs (Trans Neptunian Objects), notably Sedna and Quaoar, will likely be upgraded to planets once their spherical character can be confirmed.
Well thats what's been said
Unbelievable how quickly the situation changed from Pluto about to be de-classified to an extra 3 Celestial bodies being named as planets
to be honest, i think that kinda sux. 12 planet system doesnt seem as right as 9 planet does
What does it mean to astrology? 8)
nobody knows, and nobody cares
The only thing that is written in the stars themselves, is my conquering of the entire universe
Well, considering they name the planets after Roman gods, I would say Juno. But if I were to break the rules, I would say Pierrus. :-D
Great... I'm taking Astronomy this year at school, so the first question will be "how many planets are there?".
no one fully understand the solar system yet there are still lots of mysteries to be discovers :-D
How does the 1AU tie in with other possibly far more massive Solar systems?
I think they have left the door open for another free lunch sometime to go through it all again and again...
I'd skip that question and go on to answer the one that asks "What was there before the big bang" - far easier to answer!
? what do you mean with this? one AU is the distance between sun and earth, generalyHow does the 1AU tie in with other possibly far more massive Solar systems?
Excuse me. What are you guys prattling on about?
Nobody mentioned 1AU. I posted the draft resolution of the IAU. The International Astronomical Union. Get with the programme., why don't you.
Where?
Towards the bottom of page 1 of this thread. (Assuming you see this as being on page 3.)
Oh, that. I thought that you had posted the decision made by the IAU. The final one. What happened, anyways?
I think I heard somewhere that Earth had been downgraded in preperation for it's demolition due to the need for a new intergallactic highway right through our solar system. So maybe Pluto is not alone.
Damn pessimists.
Yaya, pluto has been downgraded. Somehow, the decisions is not only on those Scientists, due to the past history, they always make mistake by assuming that they're right. They don't even set their foot at there, by peeping from earth what do they know?
if pluto remain as our solar system than they have to put charon in also because its almost the size of pluto. think think they are binary stars haha :-D
I think we all need to accept that the word "planet" is a relatively useless term, merely talking about the orbit of an object, as does "moon." Planets orbit stars, moons orbit planets.
If it can be determined that Pluto, Charon, and UB, all have orbits around the sun independent of the Kuiper Belt, I would think they would have to be planets, because "planet" says nothing about origin.
I don't know what to do about comets, however.
I would like to propose that only bodies known to have life are designated planets, The central object of the system if illuminated shall be called a 'star'. Everything else I propose should be classified as 'formation residue' - :wink:
That would just be even more confusing. However, it would renew interest in finding extra-terrextial life! :-D
| « Mars Exploration Rovers | Predictions » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
