• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
- - - - -

How many planets?


  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#1 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 16 August 2006 - 02:35 PM


As those who have been paying attention have noticed there has been a large inconsistency of late in how we define what s a *planet* and how many we accept are in our solar system for teaching. Well the community of astronomers has come to a decision. The current plan creates a new category, *plutons* and increases the official number to 12. My own opinion is now they have confused the issue of what is a moon by this plan unless Charon does not orbit Pluto. My personal opinion is that if one body orbits another, other than the sun, then regardless of its size it should be identified as a moon. If we are not careful then perhaps many of the moons of the gas giants would also be considered planets under this proposal I suspect. Anyway here is the article.

Plan would add planets to solar system

By WILLIAM J. KOLE, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 29 minutes ago

PRAGUE, Czech Republic - The universe really is expanding — astronomers are proposing to rewrite the textbooks to say that our solar system has 12 planets rather than the nine memorized by generations of schoolchildren. Much-maligned Pluto would remain a planet — and its largest moon plus two other heavenly bodies would join Earth's neighborhood — under a draft resolution to be formally presented Wednesday to the International Astronomical Union, the arbiter of what is and isn't a planet.

"Yes, Virginia, Pluto is a planet," quipped Richard Binzel, a professor of planetary science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

The proposal could change, however: Binzel and the other nearly 2,500 astronomers from 75 nations meeting in Prague to hammer out a universal definition of a planet will hold two brainstorming sessions before they vote on the resolution next week. But the draft comes from the IAU's executive committee, which only submits recommendations likely to get two-thirds approval from the group.

Besides reaffirming the status of puny Pluto — whose detractors insist it shouldn't be a planet at all — the new lineup would include 2003 UB313, the farthest-known object in the solar system and nicknamed Xena; Pluto's largest moon, Charon; and the asteroid Ceres, which was a planet in the 1800s before it got demoted.

The panel also proposed a new category of planets called "plutons," referring to Pluto-like objects that reside in the Kuiper Belt, a mysterious, disc-shaped zone beyond Neptune containing thousands of comets and planetary objects. Pluto itself and two of the potential newcomers — Charon and 2003 UB313 — would be plutons.

Astronomers also were being asked to get rid of the term "minor planets," which long has been used to collectively describe asteroids, comets and other non-planetary objects. Instead, those would become collectively known as "small solar system bodies."

If the resolution is approved, the 12 planets in our solar system listed in order of their proximity to the sun would be Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Ceres, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, Charon, and the provisionally named 2003 UB313. Its discoverer, Michael Brown of the California Institute of Technology, nicknamed it Xena after the warrior princess of TV fame, but it likely would be rechristened something else later, the panel said.

The galactic shift would force publishers to update encyclopedias and school textbooks, and elementary school teachers to rejigger the planet mobiles hanging from classroom ceilings. Far outside the realm of science, astrologers accustomed to making predictions based on the classic nine might have to tweak their formulas. Even if the list of planets is officially lengthened when astronomers vote on Aug. 24, it's not likely to stay that way for long: The IAU has a "watchlist" of at least a dozen other potential candidates that could become planets once more is known about their sizes and orbits. "The solar system is a middle-aged star, and like all middle-aged things, its waistline is expanding," said Jack Horkheimer, director of the Miami Space Transit Planetarium in the United States and host of Public Broadcasting's Stargazer television show.

Opponents of Pluto, which was named a planet in 1930, still might spoil for a fight. Earth's moon is larger; so is 2003 UB313 (Xena), about 70 miles wider. But the IAU said Pluto meets its proposed new definition of a planet: any round object larger than 800 kilometers (nearly 500 miles) in diameter that orbits the sun and has a mass roughly one-12,000th that of Earth. Moons and asteroids will make the grade if they meet those basic tests. Roundness is key, experts said, because it indicates an object has enough self-gravity to pull itself into a spherical shape. Yet Earth's moon wouldn't qualify because the two bodies' common center of gravity lies below the surface of the Earth.

"People were probably wondering: If they take away Pluto, is Rhode Island next?" Binzel quipped. "There are as many opinions about Pluto as there are astronomers. But Pluto has gravity on its side. By the physics of our proposed definition, Pluto makes it by a long shot."

IAU President Ronald D. Ekers said the draft definition, two years in the making, was an attempt to reach a cosmic consensus and end decades of quarreling. "We don't want an American version, a European version and a Japanese version" of what constitutes a planet, he said.

Neil deGrasse Tyson, director of the Hayden Planetarium at New York's American Museum of Natural History — miscast as a "Pluto-hater," he contends, merely because Pluto was excluded from a solar system exhibit — said the new guidelines would clear up the fuzzier aspects of the Milky Way. "For the first time since ancient Greece, we have an unambiguous definition," he said. "Now, when an object is debated as a possible planet, the answer can be swift and clear."

___

AP Science Writers Alicia Chang in Los Angeles and Seth Borenstein in Washington contributed to this story.


Actual IAU Draft on planets

International Astronomical Union (home)

#2 Richard Leis

  • Guest
  • 866 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Tucson, Arizona

Posted 16 August 2006 - 03:00 PM

If we are not careful then perhaps many of the moons of the gas giants would also be considered planets under this proposal I suspect.


Under the proposal, this would not be a problem because the center of gravity is well within the planet itself. Only objects that are spherical and share a center of gravity outside of either body would be considered double (or triple, or quadruple) planets.

The more I study the proposal, the less critical I become. The new planets are already the largest objects within their respective belts. This suggests that planetary belts tend to produce at least one planet, with the remaining material making up the diffuse belt. The Asteroid Belt produced Ceres (and maybe a few other planets, if we discover other asteroids are in fact round) and a bunch of debris. The Kuiper Belt produced the double planet Pluto and Charon, and a bunch of debris. 2003 UB313 may also be a planet of the Kuiper Belt, or the planet of a previously poorly understood belt.

#3 biknut

  • Guest
  • 1,892 posts
  • -2
  • Location:Dallas Texas

Posted 16 August 2006 - 04:11 PM

"Yet Earth's moon wouldn't qualify because the two bodies' common center of gravity lies below the surface of the Earth."

I don't understand what they're saying here. So, if the common center of gravity lies below the surface of the other body, does that make it a two planet system, or a planet and moon?

it's kind of interesting to think of the earth and moon as a two planet system.

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#4 123456

  • Guest
  • 295 posts
  • 0

Posted 16 August 2006 - 04:50 PM

I try to make up my own planet rules, what constitutes a planet.

- Be in our universe (Check) [lol]
- Located in a galaxy, not in open space between galaxies if that is at all possible
- Orbits, revolves, around a star of some kind
- Have relatively large mass (Don't know, scientists have to be arbitrarily decide on the minimum mass which is accepted as large)
- Rotates on its axis, while it orbits the star
- Have some sorth of atmosphere
- Have a core of metallic matter, at lease a solid core
- Be of a fairly rounded shape like Earth, Venus etc.

I can't think of anything else right now.

#5 Live Forever

  • Guest Recorder
  • 7,475 posts
  • 9
  • Location:Atlanta, GA USA

Posted 16 August 2006 - 09:27 PM

- Have a core of metallic matter, at lease a solid core

Sorry, the Earth is hollow. [lol]

#6 Richard Leis

  • Guest
  • 866 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Tucson, Arizona

Posted 16 August 2006 - 10:24 PM

I don't understand what they're saying here. So, if the common center of gravity lies below the surface of the other body, does that make it a two planet system, or a planet and moon?


If the common center of gravity lies below the surface of one of the bodies, then the system is a planet and a satellite. If the common center of gravity lies in space between them, then the system is a double, triple, quaduple, or greater planet. The Earth and Moon remain a planet and its satellite, while Pluto and Charon become a double planet system. For all other existing planet/satellite combinations, nothing has changed.

#7 Richard Leis

  • Guest
  • 866 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Tucson, Arizona

Posted 16 August 2006 - 10:31 PM

- Be in our universe (Check) biggrin.gif
- Located in a galaxy, not in open space between galaxies if that is at all possible
- Orbits, revolves, around a star of some kind
- Have relatively large mass (Don't know, scientists have to be arbitrarily decide on the minimum mass which is accepted as large)
- Rotates on its axis, while it orbits the star
- Have some sorth of atmosphere
- Have a core of metallic matter, at lease a solid core
- Be of a fairly rounded shape like Earth, Venus etc.


Planet-like bodies were recently discovered in the open space between stars, most likely ejected by their parent stars. This is probably possible in between galaxies if the ejection speed is great enough.

Under the new definition, you mass and rounded shape bullets above come together to define a planet. Only planets with enough mass will collapse into a sphere. Right now that appears to be any body the size of Saturn's moon Enceladus and above.

The gas giants have solid cores about the size of the Earth, but they are probably nothing like the cores of the terrestrial planets. These cores are surrounded, at least in the case of Jupiter and Saturn, but metallic hydrogen "seas". Core composition is probably not a good indicator of planetary status, especially because many of the moons have rocky/metalic cores comparable to the terrestrial planets.

#8 mikelorrey

  • Guest
  • 131 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Grantham, NH

Posted 21 August 2006 - 06:18 PM

Under the proposal, this would not be a problem because the center of gravity is well within the planet itself.  Only objects that are spherical and share a center of gravity outside of either body would be considered double (or triple, or quadruple) planets.

The more I study the proposal, the less critical I become.  The new planets are already the largest objects within their respective belts.  This suggests that planetary belts tend to produce at least one planet, with the remaining material making up the diffuse belt.  The Asteroid Belt produced Ceres (and maybe a few other planets, if we discover other asteroids are in fact round) and a bunch of debris.  The Kuiper Belt produced the double planet Pluto and Charon, and a bunch of debris.  2003 UB313 may also be a planet of the Kuiper Belt, or the planet of a previously poorly understood belt.


UB313 and XR190 both have very steep inclinations, which IMHO may be captured planetoids from the companion star Nemesis. Isotopic analysis may indicate an affirmative, particularly if high concentrations of deuterium and lithium are detected, which would indicate time spent in the heliosphere of a deuterium fusing brown dwarf, or a small red dwarf.

Sedna, a KBO with an extremely eccentric orbit that takes it as far as 525 AU out, is another candidate, as is 2000CR105, which reaches 415 AU at aphelion.

#9 biknut

  • Guest
  • 1,892 posts
  • -2
  • Location:Dallas Texas

Posted 22 August 2006 - 03:53 AM

I was reading some of the complaints some scientists have about the new proposed system.

One of the better complaints was, What if we find a new body that has another body orbiting with a very eccentric orbit that part of the time the common center of gravity is below the surface of the other body and part of the time it is outside.

#10 mikelorrey

  • Guest
  • 131 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Grantham, NH

Posted 23 August 2006 - 03:39 AM

I've also been a fan of Ceres. NASA has a probe in development for a Ceres/Vesta mission, btw, which will give us close up images of the last two unexplored major inner system bodies.

While further away than Mars, should it have a thicker atmosphere due to the thick layer of icy volatiles in the crust that make up about 1/5th of its mass, Ceres could indeed have some interesting things to show us. Its surface gravity is calculated to be about 1/30th of a G.

While sf authors have written of Ceres being mined for metals, its icy crust appears to be rather thick. Any metals that are reachable are likely due to impact events. Ceres richness of water in such a shallow gravity well, though, indicate that it is a rich watering hole to provide fuel and water supplies to martian and lunar outposts. Ceres will be the Saudi Arabia of the solar system.

#11 Live Forever

  • Guest Recorder
  • 7,475 posts
  • 9
  • Location:Atlanta, GA USA

Posted 23 August 2006 - 01:32 PM

In this NY Times article, they describe the three tiered system of classification that is being proposed. The new system would have eight “planets”; a group of “dwarf-planets” that would include Pluto, Ceres, Xena and many other icy balls in the outer solar system; and thousands of “smaller solar system bodies,” like comets and asteroids. It sounds to me like a valid compromise.

#12 Lazarus Long

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 24 August 2006 - 04:04 PM

The decision is in..... drum roll please............

...............................

There are eight!

Astronomers say Pluto is not a planet
1 hour, 16 minutes ago

PRAGUE, Czech Republic - Leading astronomers declared Thursday that Pluto is no longer a planet under historic new guidelines that downsize the solar system from nine planets to eight.

After a tumultuous week of clashing over the essence of the cosmos, the International Astronomical Union stripped Pluto of the planetary status it has held since its discovery in 1930. The new definition of what is — and isn't — a planet fills a centuries-old black hole for scientists who have labored since Copernicus without one. Although astronomers applauded after the vote, Jocelyn Bell Burnell — a specialist in neutron stars from Northern Ireland who oversaw the proceedings — urged those who might be "quite disappointed" to look on the bright side.

"It could be argued that we are creating an umbrella called 'planet' under which the dwarf planets exist," she said, drawing laughter by waving a stuffed Pluto of Walt Disney fame beneath a real umbrella.

The decision by the prestigious international group spells out the basic tests that celestial objects will have to meet before they can be considered for admission to the elite cosmic club. For now, membership will be restricted to the eight "classical" planets in the solar system: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune.

Much-maligned Pluto doesn't make the grade under the new rules for a planet: "a celestial body that is in orbit around the sun, has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a ... nearly round shape, and has cleared the neighborhood around its orbit."

Pluto is automatically disqualified because its oblong orbit overlaps with Neptune's.

Instead, it will be reclassified in a new category of "dwarf planets," similar to what long have been termed "minor planets." The definition also lays out a third class of lesser objects that orbit the sun — "small solar system bodies," a term that will apply to numerous asteroids, comets and other natural satellites. It was unclear how Pluto's demotion might affect the mission of NASA's New Horizons spacecraft, which earlier this year began a 9 1/2-year journey to the oddball object to unearth more of its secrets.

The decision at a conference of 2,500 astronomers from 75 countries was a dramatic shift from just a week ago, when the group's leaders floated a proposal that would have reaffirmed Pluto's planetary status and made planets of its largest moon and two other objects. That plan proved highly unpopular, splitting astronomers into factions and triggering days of sometimes combative debate that led to Pluto's undoing.

Now, two of the objects that at one point were cruising toward possible full-fledged planethood will join Pluto as dwarfs: the asteroid Ceres, which was a planet in the 1800s before it got demoted, and 2003 UB313, an icy object slightly larger than Pluto whose discoverer, Michael Brown of the California Institute of Technology, has nicknamed "Xena."

Charon, the largest of Pluto's three moons, is no longer under consideration for any special designation.

Brown was pleased by the decision. He had argued that Pluto and similar bodies didn't deserve planet status, saying that would "take the magic out of the solar system."

"UB313 is the largest dwarf planet. That's kind of cool," he said.

#13 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 24 August 2006 - 04:13 PM

Good. Pluto doesn't deserve to be a planet.

#14 Live Forever

  • Guest Recorder
  • 7,475 posts
  • 9
  • Location:Atlanta, GA USA

Posted 24 August 2006 - 04:46 PM

Pluto just got pimp slapped.


I kind of feel sorry for Pluto, always getting bullied by the bigger, stronger planets. [lol]

#15 stephen

  • Guest
  • 202 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Boston, MA

Posted 25 August 2006 - 12:14 AM

Does this feel like a publicity stunt to anyone?

#16 Live Forever

  • Guest Recorder
  • 7,475 posts
  • 9
  • Location:Atlanta, GA USA

Posted 25 August 2006 - 01:44 AM

Does this feel like a publicity stunt to anyone?

No. There has been genuine conflict for awhile among scientists.

#17 JohnDoe1234

  • Guest
  • 1,097 posts
  • 154
  • Location:US

Posted 25 August 2006 - 04:36 AM

Interesting... I wonder what the 2nd grade teachers are saying to their students now "I know billy... I told you there were 9 planets in the solar system yesterday... but now there are only 8" hehe

#18 Richard Leis

  • Guest
  • 866 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Tucson, Arizona

Posted 28 August 2006 - 10:10 PM

Teachers are required only to teach the latest understandings in science, and the demotion of Pluto is an excellent opportunity for involving students.

The public will easily accommodate changes in planetary science based on new research, vetted by the scientific community. Public input should never be required or valued in decisions such as these. I will always defer to scientists when it comes to science.

Mike Brown tried to appeal to Pluto as a cultural planet, but it is nice to see him abandon that idea in favor of the new proposal.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users