Will the 3 newly discovered planets should be added in the Solar System? If no plz provide suitable reasons.?

Answer 1

the international astronomical union is just defining the word "planet". there are no newly discovered planets. one minor planet, ceres, and pluto, charon, and 2003 UB313 will be classified as planets, if the iau votes to define planet as any body who's mass is more than about 5 x 10e+20 kg, so it's spherical, orbits a star, and is less massive than a brown dwarf. pluto, charon, and 2003 UB313 will be in a new group called "plutons".

Answer 2

first we need to decide which definition of planet we are using... it would be rather embarassing to classify the three new planets only to have to declassify them again in 75 years...
here is the official IAU definition for planet... you decide
Prior to the IAU redefinition debate, a Planet was something fairly large that orbits the Sun; Asteroids as something fairly small doing the same; and, Moons as objects which orbit a planet. But, what should the cutoff be? The IAU is suggesting that the cutoff should be a product of enough gravity to create a spheroidal structure. But, this would make many moons into Planets. The IAU has suggested that Charon be considered a planet. Yet, the size of Charon is rather small. For Charon to be described as a part of a Binary Planetary System would only elaborate the obvious. If Charon is part of a Binary System, is IO part of a Poly Planetary System? The noteworthiness of periodicity within the moons of Jupiter is greater than that of the binary nature of Charon. So, what is the best way to determine what a Planet is? Luckily, nature has already provided an answer. Long thought to have no substantial value, a simple adjustment of the Titius Bode equation brings the idea of Planetary Periodicity into the realm of definition of a planet. A planet should be defined as a major mass within a planetary periodicity. It's simple, and only Charon is left to wither as part of a Binary Planetary System. Why come up with a convoluted system of nonsense while a simple system of nature is available? The difference from actual for the Adjusted Bode max's out at Saturn (4.854%). In a vacuum that might cause a problem. But, the character of Saturn is observable. Saturn is a massive object that can't even be called round because of its structural inertia. It has an eccentricity third from least circular, with Mercury and Pluto being worse.

Answer 3

Ceres is mainly an astroid that's alittle closer than the rest of it's bro's and sis'. The International Astronomical Union wants this and the following two added as planets.

Charon is a planet just as Pluto is. Thre only reason that scientists called it a moon was because they didn't believe the face that a planet can capture another planet. When this happens, planets tend to orbit eachother.

2003 UB313 is an astroid to be named Xena and a planet. I don't know much about this one so I'll stay quiet.

Answer 4

Pluto's status as the solar system's ninth planet became a relic of history Thursday when international astronomers meeting in the Czech Republic decided it was too small to remain a full member of the planetary club.

Members of the International Astronomical Union overwhelmingly voted to demote Pluto to a "dwarf planet." Though still retaining the term planet, it was clear that Pluto had been...........

Answer 5

Nope. They wont. They actually took Pluto OUT of the solar system. That's right. Technically 8 planets now.

Answer 6

Eris, the biggest dwarf planet time-honored, become got here upon in an ongoing survey at Palomar Observatory's Samuel Oschin telescope via astronomers Mike Brown (Caltech), Chad Trujillo (Gemini Observatory), and David Rabinowitz (Yale college). We formally suggested the call on 6 September 2006, and it become regular and introduced on 13 September 2006.

Answer 7

Xena should as long as it really orbits around the sun. Charon should only if it doesn't also orbit around Pluto, because that would make it a moon, not a planet. Orbiting around a planet it what defines a moon. I don't know too much about Ceres, I suppose it would depend if it had a gravity well that kept other asteroids away from it.

Answer 8

The bodies are discovered far away from sum ,but they can not be catogerised under solar system for the time being because evidently one of them having their own suns( 3 in number).Sometime they may be categorised to some other system.

Answer 9

Yes,

And the planets beyond Neptune (viz. Pluto, Charon & Xena) would be classified as Plutons (a sub catageory of planets)
And Pluto & Charon would also be termed as twin planets (such as binary stars. but here, instead of revolving around each other, Charon revolves around a point which is OUTSIDE PLUTO this is why it will no longer be termed as Pluto's sattelite)


& according to the new definition of planets, the heavenly bodies which.......
1) Have some minimum mass,
2) Shape themselves somewhat spherical due to their own gravity, and,
3) Do not revolve around other planets.

may be termed as planets.

Answer 10

They aren't newly discovered, and they've always been in our Solar System. Even if we didn't call them planets, that wouldn't mean they aren't part of our Solar System.