Planet question is finally solved!

The cosmos at our fingertips.
Post Reply
ckam
Science Officer
Posts: 171
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 6:16 am

Planet question is finally solved!

Post by ckam » Wed Aug 16, 2006 9:45 am

[[url=http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,20148496-5006002,00.html]link[/url]] wrote:A committee of the International Astronomical Union... voted unanimously Tuesday to add three worlds to our solar system's planetary population. More planets will be added later, astronomers said... The IAU committee recognised two other plutons – Pluto's smaller companion, Charon, and Xena, an icy body bigger than Pluto that was discovered in 2003. In addition, Ceres, the biggest asteroid between Mars and Jupiter, will regain the planetary status it enjoyed in the 19th century.

cosmo_uk
Science Officer
Posts: 120
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 9:43 am

Post by cosmo_uk » Wed Aug 16, 2006 9:54 am


Chef StiX
Ensign
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 11:10 pm

Post by Chef StiX » Wed Aug 16, 2006 7:17 pm

What no love for Sedna?

User avatar
BMAONE23
Commentator Model 1.23
Posts: 4076
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 6:55 pm
Location: California

Post by BMAONE23 » Wed Aug 16, 2006 7:31 pm

By the very definition provided though, Charon wouldn't / shouldn't be a planet. It is a moon of Pluto. Granted it may be large enough to exert a greater influence on the orbit of Pluto than most moons do on their host planets but it still directly orbits Pluto and not the sun. Or else our moon would be a planet as it to orbits the sun indirectly and is significantly larger than Charon.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/0 ... ition.html

User avatar
iamlucky13
Commander
Posts: 515
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 7:28 pm
Location: Seattle, WA

Post by iamlucky13 » Wed Aug 16, 2006 11:44 pm

Because the barycenter (common orbit point) of the Pluto-Charon group is outside of either body's radius, neither one is considered to genuinely dominate the other gravitationally, so it's considered a binary system.

I've got mixed feelings about the definition, but my objections are mostly knee-jerk or historical. Kids will still learn about the nine original planets with Roman names for a while, but it's not a closed set. I guess it's no more confounding ultimately than extra-solar planets, but it really takes a lot of the glamour out of the recognition. At the risk of being politically incorrect, calling a body that probably formed in the Kuiper belt and has an extreme inclination like 2003UB-313 or Sedna a planet is kind of like calling an immigrant who doesn't speak English an American. He's here and he's got his papers, but he still doesn't fit in.
"Any man whose errors take ten years to correct is quite a man." ~J. Robert Oppenheimer (speaking about Albert Einstein)

User avatar
orin stepanek
Plutopian
Posts: 8200
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 3:41 pm
Location: Nebraska

Post by orin stepanek » Thu Aug 17, 2006 2:04 am

I like the new rules defining a planet. After all they were formed pretty much the same as the other planets; not their fault that we are finally able to find them. Maybe some day there will be 200 or more, so what?! If we grew up with them we wouldn't think anything about it. They are all a part of Sol's family. You shouldn't disown a son just because he's a runt. 8) We can always put an * around the first 9. :P
Orin

User avatar
BMAONE23
Commentator Model 1.23
Posts: 4076
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 6:55 pm
Location: California

Post by BMAONE23 » Thu Aug 17, 2006 6:19 am

iamlucky13 wrote:Because the barycenter (common orbit point) of the Pluto-Charon group is outside of either body's radius, neither one is considered to genuinely dominate the other gravitationally, so it's considered a binary system.
The other two moons though, appear to orbit pluto in nearly circlar orbits that seem to be in the same geometric center as Charon's orbit. At least every graphic I've seen to date shows the Pluto system as 1 main body planet with three moons in circular orbits that center on Pluto. It would be interesting to see if the other two moons in fact orbit the barycenter or the main body. I would agree with the binary idea if they orbit the barycenter.

I think they should name the two new moons Goofey moon and Minnie moon. :D

ckam
Science Officer
Posts: 171
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 6:16 am

Post by ckam » Thu Aug 17, 2006 7:32 am

orin stepanek wrote:I like the new rules defining a planet.
which are:
[[url=http://www.iau2006.org/mirror/www.iau.org/iau0601/iau0601_release.html]link[/url]] wrote: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, and (b) is in orbit around a star, and is neither a star nor a satellite of a planet.

harry
G'day G'day G'day G'day
Posts: 2881
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 8:04 am
Location: Sydney Australia

Post by harry » Thu Aug 17, 2006 8:49 am

Hello All

As chef said,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,what about Sedna?

As the song goes,,,,,,,,,,,,,,What about me,,,,,

Link: Sedna
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap040827.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap040316.html


Solar System Object Larger than Pluto Discovered
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap050731.html


Solar System Extrema
http://seds.lpl.arizona.edu/nineplanets ... ml#largest

Image Archive: Solar System
http://www.spacetelescope.org/images/ar ... r+system//

The Solar System and its bodies.
http://www.nineplanets.org/

Voyager at 90 AU
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap031120.html
Harry : Smile and live another day.

User avatar
Qev
Ontological Cartographer
Posts: 576
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:20 pm

Post by Qev » Thu Aug 17, 2006 3:14 pm

harry wrote:As the song goes,,,,,,,,,,,,,,What about me,,,,,
Not a Nihilist Spasm fan, are you Harry? :D
Don't just stand there, get that other dog!

User avatar
Orca
Commander
Posts: 516
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 6:58 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Post by Orca » Thu Aug 17, 2006 7:29 pm

If this decision holds, the word "planet" doesn't have much meaning anymore.

Personally, I think that only the major bodies orbiting the sun within the plane of the system should be "planets" and everything else should be considered "planetoids." Yes, Pluto should be demoted.

Well, that's my two bits of copper.

harry
G'day G'day G'day G'day
Posts: 2881
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 8:04 am
Location: Sydney Australia

Post by harry » Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:16 am

Hello Orca

I think planets should be defined by size (limit) and their function, as in moon or not.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

smile,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,I thought size did not matter


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
What about solar system of stars?

What about solar system of galaxies? as in the milkyway and its small galaxies rotating around. ooops that would be a galaxy system.
Harry : Smile and live another day.

User avatar
orin stepanek
Plutopian
Posts: 8200
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 3:41 pm
Location: Nebraska

Post by orin stepanek » Wed Aug 23, 2006 5:22 pm

Watch list for possible planets!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candidate_planets
Orin

cosmo_uk
Science Officer
Posts: 120
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 9:43 am

Post by cosmo_uk » Thu Aug 24, 2006 3:25 pm

update: the votes have been cast at the IAU, proposal rejected

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/5282440.stm

Pluto demoted, no others promoted. We've now only got 8 planets

User avatar
orin stepanek
Plutopian
Posts: 8200
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 3:41 pm
Location: Nebraska

Post by orin stepanek » Thu Aug 24, 2006 4:30 pm

It's sad; but a decision had to be made. It was exciting for a while. What about mercury? Mercury is smaller than Titan; but I guess it has a cleared orbit. :?
Orin

User avatar
orin stepanek
Plutopian
Posts: 8200
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 3:41 pm
Location: Nebraska

Post by orin stepanek » Tue Aug 29, 2006 6:11 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2006_ ... t#Petition
Maybe the fat lady hasn't sung yet.
Orin

Post Reply