With the scientific community now adding planets to what we considered our known solar system, everything we knew is now outdated. Is this good science or just something else to make us all look stupid?
2006-08-17 03:11:22 · 14 answers · asked by adeliza_of_bristol 2 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Astronomy & Space
I thought it was funny. It sounded like the ACC Conference adding new teams. I also didn't understand their criteria. Our moon doesn't count, but one of Pluto's moons does.
2006-08-17 03:20:56 · answer #1 · answered by faversham 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It doesnt really matter how many planets their are, as long at they are really 'planets'. There is a rerally big debate going on about planets, but i think they've finally found the true definition of a 'planet':
A planet has to be big enough to have enough gravity to shape it into a circular shape
It has to orbit around a sun/star
Having a natural satelite also makes it more 'planet-like'.
That about explains the term "planet"
Then there are other objects in the solar system, like asteroids, meteors, meteorites, comets, and all sonts of rebel and dust. ALl which shouldnt be classified as planets!
I believe that there are more planets in the solar system, but I dont want them to over do it, there are limitations to what can be called a planet! =D
2006-08-17 03:46:40 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not true. Everything that we know is NOT outdated. Anymore than the discovery of new species makes everything we know outdated. Things are just different. Dont let a fear of anyone looking stupid prevent you from accepting what has been discovered
Now as to whether or not its a good idea, I don't know. It would help alot if scientests could come to an agreement on how to define a planet before they start declaring things one.
2006-08-17 03:18:25 · answer #3 · answered by shinobisoulxxx 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
certain! there is purely one solar in our photo voltaic equipment! or you'd be seeing 2 suns interior the sky. There are situations the position there are 2 suns gravitationally sure to at least one yet another; those are talked about as binary platforms (which ability: 2 suns in a unmarried gravitational equipment). Ours is one small photo voltaic equipment interior a larger grouping talked about as The Milky way Galaxy. it truly is a huge disk galaxy. We see it on part; it truly is the surprising band of stars in the course of the sky once you're out interior the country at nighttime. each and every of those stars is a solar in different photo voltaic platforms that are far, far away. There are also many different galaxies, they are in many circumstances only a smudge of sunshine, lots of of suns at a staggering distance, so man or woman stars (suns) won't be able to be outstanding without extreme powered telescopes. After a lot communicate, Pluto has been defined as "not a Planet". a sequence of situations were regularly occurring that outline a planet. Pluto became excluded because it has an eccentric orbit it truly is out of sync with the different planets of our photo voltaic equipment. some scientists experience that Pluto became shaped elsewhere and has been captured via our solar's gravitational rigidity, yet perchance quickly because of it truly is spectacular distance from the solar and its eccentric orbit. even if it truly is an merchandise revolving round our solar, so it and a number of different products were given a sparkling type of "minor planets". with the aid of our (humanity's) increasing ability to work out longer distances and decide fuzzy pictures, we are studying further and further anomalies both in our photo voltaic equipment and previous. And further and further planets are being stumbled on round different suns. i'm hoping this facilitates which includes your discussions.
2016-11-05 00:21:02 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes....it's about time that the powers that be at least tried to expand on the definition of 'planet'. The ancient Greek astronomers only knew that planets 'moved' across the heavens, as opposed to fixed stars. By the nature of their definition, the Sun and Moon were also planets!
2006-08-17 03:22:06 · answer #5 · answered by swilliamrex 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Its a good thing, the most Bizarre thing is they discovered this almost last year?! They saw all the solar systems and they missed this?! wtf!!!!!but yeah, its all good. Kids in the future have to know the planets from OTHER galaxies lol
2006-08-17 03:19:08 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's a good thing that there is, or soon will be, a definition of "planet". Whether that adds, subracts or keeps the same the number and names of the planets is not relevant.
However, more planets will make it harder for students to remember them all.
2006-08-17 04:19:48 · answer #7 · answered by SPLATT 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It depends on your interests, the thing is that it doesn't change anything but the way you used to see your world, if you are open minded then you'll realize that your universe is just growing bigger, and you'll also have more things tom learn. My point is the planets have always been there, so what is the real diference? None.
2006-08-17 03:20:07 · answer #8 · answered by Serge 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, it gives us a better understanding of the complexity of the solar system. But it also reduces the importance of Juipter to the level of Ceres (a large asteroid) how does that benefit us?
2006-08-17 03:18:44 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sure. It just gives us a better understanding of the complexity of our solar system.
2006-08-17 03:16:57 · answer #10 · answered by The Man 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋