Under new guidelines for the indentification of planets there will now be 12 recognised planets instead of the current 9. With the new system, if a planitary body has enough gravity to pull itself into a sperical shape then it is a planet. The new proposal, which will soon be voted upon by a worldwide body of astronomers, puts planets into three groups:
The Classical Planets(8): Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune.
The plutons (small icy planets on the outer fringers of the solar system, of which there are currently 3, but this number may rise as new planets are discovered and identified, at the moment there are around a dozen other planets under investigation): The twin planets of Pluto & Charon (formerly Pluto's moon) and 2003 UB313 (now the furthest planet from the sun, it is bigger than pluto)
Ceres: Under the new system this former asteroid between Mars and Jupiter is now a planet.
see more at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4795755.stm
2006-08-16 00:55:33 · 6 answers · asked by True_Brit 3 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Astronomy & Space
I have been following this story with great interest. Its funny to think that up 'til now we haven't had a scientific definition of what a "planet" is. While it is exciting to think that there are new planets and to see astronomers update the model of the solar system to fit with the new discoveries of modern technology-- I am not sure if I like this. It seems that they are including objects that are too small. I felt that it would have been more appropriate to downgrade Pluto. I guess they compromised by calling planets that take more than 200 years to orbit the earth "plutons." Perhaps this will mean that we will be having major planets and minor planets. My concern is that as our observation techniques improve and we learn more about the solar system-- other random objects will be classified as planets and we will have dozens of planets. It seems like the criteria have to do with the size minimum size (250-500 miles depending on what it is made of) and its roundness (implying that it has significant gravity to hold itself together). The roundness is definitely an interesting criterion.
I am reading an article in the Boston Globe right now saying that the number of planets may climb to over 100. Seems like too many to me. However, I do like the fact that they are also defining what a moon is and it is relative to the mass of the planet that it orbits. The moon is actually larger than Pluto and Charon (and Ceres), but since it is so much smaller than the Earth it is considered a planet. Since Pluto and its former moon, Charon, are similar in sized they are being classified as a double planet-- kind of a cool concept.
Bottom line, I don't really like it, but give me a little bit of time and I will probably warm up to it. After all I've been attached to the idea of 9 planets for almost 30 years-- it will take a little bit of time to get used to a new system.
2006-08-16 01:29:06 · answer #1 · answered by Hugo Reyes 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I don't like it. It becomes too confusing keeping all those objects in space lined up. Anyway, they made a mistake. It is not just the mass that causes an object to become spherical. Also included is the heat energy within the mass. If a mass the size of earth had no heat energy within, it could be formed into a cube and it would remain that way. c2 = E/m is the equation for a gravitational field. Notice that as the energy changes so, also, does the gravitational value of the object. I think its gotta be redone.
I heard that all objects forming into a sphere may be considered as being named a planet.
2006-08-16 04:19:24 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
jointly as I unquestionably have confidence it became into in the capability of God to create and control the universe (seem up Fatima and the "Miracle of the solar".... witnessed with the aid of over 70,000 human beings), i do no longer have confidence that it is the way He did create. and that i've got confidence that the Bible backs me. i've got confidence that the "massive bang" became into genuine... introduction from no longer something....("in the commencing up God created the heavens and the earth.." BANG) that the suns and planets took time to strengthen ("Now the earth became right into a FORMLESS void.." aka dirt/moisture cloud)... that the solar and stars ought to no longer be seen with the aid of this dirt cloud for particularly a jointly as, for this reason the life of light and darkness before seeing the solar... that He ordered "enable the EARTH produce plant life.... enable the EARTH produce all residing creatures..." "And so it became into. The EARTH produced vegetating..." which unquestionably implies a slower developmental technique somewhat than a "zap.... there it is"... That guy became into produced from the dirt of the earth.... that the order of introduction in the Bible is precisely the way that stay stepped forward in the international... mammals and guy coming final. All of those would be used to instruct how God would have used the slower strategies-set of massive-bang, ambiogenesis, and evolution as His skill of introduction. with the aid of no skill shape or type does this undermine the inventive act. Please keep in mind that if God created the universe, then He additionally created the technological know-how and the time-line with the aid of which it is administered. this means that technological know-how can on no account disprove God, it may only let us know extra approximately how He did what He did. The Bible isn't a technological know-how e book notwithstanding. Its truths have been written in the framework of awareness of the persons of the time. There are nevertheless people who have confidence that the earth is flat when you consider that's what's in the Bible. Galileoo became into jailed as a results of fact his concept that the earthorbitedd the solar somewhat than any opposite direction around. So technological know-how HAS shown that some issues in the Bible at the instant are not scientifically precise. recover from it. the certainty of the Bible is in its MESSAGE.... no longer in its historic previous, technological know-how nor sociology.
2016-10-02 03:53:33 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm not clear why some other large asteroids don't qualify as planets. Doesn't Vesta form itself into a sphere?? How about Pallas and Juno?
Update: It looks like Pallas, Vesta, and Juno are not spherical, so don't qualify as planets. In regard to there being hundreds of potential planets, the requirement of sphericity under gravity requires the object to be fairly large, so I doubt that we will see a lot more planets.
2006-08-16 01:11:37 · answer #4 · answered by mathematician 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't know... it will take me a lot of time to get used to... I'm so used to the 9 itselt, it'll be hard for me to accept there is now 12. But, I am excited that the technological advances have come this far.
2006-08-16 01:01:27 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
HMMMM......I THINK ITS GREAT.
2006-08-16 01:01:58 · answer #6 · answered by Alex S 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋