Our solar system!?

Question

In my opinion, the 'new' solar system is nothing more than a load of crap. The 'expersts' insisted on adding 'planets' to our solar system because they felt like it.

The only real current planets in the solar syster are Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jubiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, Xena.

Cerest is just an asteroid, its located in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jubiter, it is only titled planet becuase itsthe biggest asteroid known. But if Cerest can be called a planet, then why not name ALL the asteroids planets? Its just stupid.

And charon is nothing more than Pluto's moon.

WHat do you think?

Answer 1

The reason for changing the definition is so that all celestial bodies can be classified in a uniform manner.

The International Astronomical Union (IAU) may adopt Xena as the name for UB 313. Michael Brown of the California Institute of Technology who discovered the planet nicknamed it Xena after the warrior princess of TV fame. He chose Xena because it would be the 10th planet which is "X" in roman numerals. Gabrielle is the proposed name for the moon of Xena.

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 Xena (UB313). Pluto's largest moon, Charon; and the asteroid Ceres would be categorized as planets. Pluto would be categorized as both a planet and a pluton. Both Pluto and Charon each are large enough (massive enough) to be spherical. Both bodies independently satisfy the definition of “planet”. The reason they are called a “double planet” is that their common centre of gravity is a point that is located in free space outside the surface of Pluto.

The center of gravity for the Moon's orbit is in the center of the Earth. The Moon truly orbits the Earth.

The 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.

The growing category of "plutons" - Pluto-like objects that reside in the Kuiper Belt, a mysterious, disc-shaped zone beyond Neptune containing thousands of comets and planetary objects.
Plutons are distinguished from classical planets in that they reside in orbits around the Sun that take longer than 200 years to complete (i.e. they orbit beyond Neptune). Plutons typically have orbits that are highly tilted with respect to the classical planets (technically referred to as a large orbital inclination). Plutons also typically have orbits that are far from being perfectly circular (technically referred to as having a large orbital eccentricity). All of these distinguishing characteristics for plutons are scientifically interesting in that they suggest a different origin from the classical planets.

Answer 2

The arugment could be made that Pluto, Charon, and Xena are all just Kuiper Belt Objects and not planets, at all. As for Ceres, it's in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter and the total mass of the asteroid belt is only something like 1/100th the mass of earth.

Charon, of course, is a moon of Pluto. So are they going to call Pluto and Charon binary planets? The aritcle I read didn't say.

I'm not an astronomer and I'm certainly no expert on what makes a planet and what doesn't make a planet, but IMHO making Ceres, Charon and Xena planets doesn't make sense. And if that's the case, then Pluto probably shouldn't be a planet, either.

Answer 3

Since a true definition of Planet didn't exist (at least it wasn't good enough to distinguish it from asteroids), they had to put some parameters on it to make a clear definition. What parameters they decided to use doesn't really matter, as long as everyone agrees to the same definition.

They made it rather simple: big enough to be spherical (800 kilometers minimum), must orbit a star - with added bit, if it has a companion body, it's gravitational center must be outside of either of those bodies). The Earth/Moon center of gravity is inside the Earth, whereas Pluto and Charon's center of gravity is between them. So the rules are simple.

If they get more any more complex, then we really need new terms for Rocky Planets vs. Gas planets...and are gas planets really just failed stars? Etc...

So I think the new definition is good, even if I agree that Pluto is a KBO.

And Ceres is probably just the largest core of a failed planet, thanks to Jupiter. But since it meets the conditions, I'll accept it.

Answer 4

Scientists like to be very precise in their language in order to avoid any confusion or misunderstandings. Therefore, the terms they use must be precisely defined. That's what all this controversy is about, what exactly defines a planet? Could a sufficiently large comet be a planet if it never comes close enough to the sun to emit a "comet tail"? How about a sufficiently large asteroid? Does a satellite need to be within a certain distance from the star it orbits in order to be considered a planet? (A distance relative to the star's size and mass of course).

Also, for some perspective, Ceres comprises 25% of the mass of all the asteroids combined. It's even visible to the naked, keen eye on a really good night.

Answer 5

To me, there are only 8 planets. Pluto is a Kuiper Belt object with an eccentric orbit that more resembles the orbit of a comet that that of a planet. Xena would probably be in the same category as Pluto. Cerses is clearly an asteroid. If you are to accept the criteria that makes these objects planets, then what's to stop us classifying the many moons of Jupiter or Saturn as planets? Even closer to home, using that criteria, what's to stop us classifying the Moon as a planet?

Answer 6

What scientists are really seeing occured millions of years ago. If there is now a planet or more than one planet in our galaxy with intelligent life it probably won't be known for a good while unless scientists invent a telescope to view what is really happening now. The reason this is almost impossible at this point is because it takes light a certain amount of light years to make it to earth. So if some explosion happened in our galaxy say in the 1950's, there's a good chance we won't see it for another million years.

So what is truly happening now is unknown.

Answer 7

What ever you call it they are are all there doing similar things like earth or mercury. So calling them planets is not a stupid act. It is a view point.

Answer 8

I agree but i also think that they have to lay down some sort of guidelines or requirements for what it is to be called a planet. They have no sort of definition and so its just a crap shoot on what is or isn't a planet.