I read a story on MSNBC.com that says a group of scientists want to increase the number of planets in our solar system to 12, making the asteroid Ceres, Pluto's moon Charon, and that thing discovered in 2003 a planet. Also, this ridiculous plan says that we could have 100 planets in the near future, because the new definition for a planet is any objet over a certain size that's not a star. It also talks about double and triple palnets, and that's where it lost me. Do you find this absurd?
2006-08-16 03:42:57 · 12 answers · asked by FootballFan1012 6 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Astronomy & Space
If Pluto's a planet, then all the others have a right to be as well. I think that's the point they're trying to make.
2006-08-16 03:48:21 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I've been involved with computational astronomy for many years. There's nothing actually wrong with having a scientific definition of what constitutes a planet any more than in defining what constitutes an insect as opposed to some other life form.
The thing I think was absurd was the cloak-and-dagger secrecy surrounding the conference like it was some form of state secret with national security at stake. There's no good reason for that clandestine nonsense in a scientific convention on the topic of astronomy. The IAU is not the CIA.
I have no doubt that there are many other exotic planetoid forms out there that have yet to be discovered and perhaps haven't even been conceived of by scientists to date. I'm quite interested in how they will deal with those odd, nebulous exceptions to whatever definition they finally adopt.
Just because something is not defined as a planet, doesn't necessarily mean that they can easily categorize it.
It's the change from the existing concept of 'planet' that's the main cause of the controversy. If we already had 12 or more planets and then decided to reduce it to 9, then everyone would be griping about that in a similar manner and calling it absurd and voicing discontent.
Some people simply can't stand it when things change, especially things that were the same for several generations, for reasons with which they disagree.
2006-08-16 04:50:14 · answer #2 · answered by Jay T 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Don't rely on second hand information from MSNBC, read it directly on the International Astronomical Union web site at the source below. Here is the most important part of the news release:
The part of "IAU Resolution 5 for GA-XXVI" that describes the planet definition, states "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."
This would clearly exclude Charon, which is a satellite of the planet Pluto, but farther down the page it does say Charon would be a planet. I think that must be an error.
2006-08-16 04:27:35 · answer #3 · answered by campbelp2002 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is slightly absurd. However, it was also absurd when scientists speculated that the Earth was round and not flat. Scientists are always learning new and exciting things and in doing such it is logical that our theories and definitions of things have to change. However, just because a scientist says that an asteroid is now a planet does not make it so. We as humans have such limited terminology to describe and label all the things that occur in nature. It may be that these terms are the best that we can come up with.
2006-08-16 04:17:40 · answer #4 · answered by legalbambino 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The definition's not absurd, but the result will be that the average person will know even less about the solar system than they do now.
No one will be able to remember all of the planets once the number gets into the hundreds. Exploring them will even start to seem pointless. The other planets will lose a lot of their mystique and the average person won't even be interested in the topic.
2006-08-16 03:57:34 · answer #5 · answered by Bob G 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
science is ever fluctuating. You'd be outraged if we had always thought there were 100 planets and then reduced it down to 9. The fact of the matter is that there is no correct answer to how many planets are there because scientists made up the term planets.
2006-08-16 03:48:25 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
wtf
hundreds?!?!?!
that just ruins the whole solar system
this is absolutely an outrage
even 12 is too many
already they think pluto might be an escaped moon of neptune, and now they're making plutos moon a planet?
im gonna call mr. msnbc and we're gonna have a little talk about this
2006-08-16 03:49:12 · answer #7 · answered by I am watching your every move. 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
This is somewhat like some scientists announcing that they have a different understanding of varities of trees and want to name them accordingly. Unless you're an expert... I think you have little standing to find this "absurd"
2006-08-16 03:49:24 · answer #8 · answered by Nobody 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Venus in basic terms regulations Taurus, they have not found out what planet regulations Libra yet so they only made them be ruled via Venus too. i do no longer know if this authentic or no longer via Taurus is ruled greater via Venus than Libra.
2016-09-29 08:11:53 · answer #9 · answered by kuhlmann 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, it's just a definition - not a quality judgment.
As we find out more and more, things are going to change.
If this really has some direct effect on you, you've got bigger problems!
2006-08-16 03:51:00 · answer #10 · answered by Marc B 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋