Is anyon else as excited to see what the outcome will be? What do you think that the decision should be? I personally feel that they should stick to classification methods and keep them all as planets. I think it would be awesome to have like 29 planets or more! Anyway, your thoughts please....
2006-08-19 05:27:52 · 11 answers · asked by Metacoma 3 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Astronomy & Space
I would say that the following are minimum characteristics of planets.
1 & 2 below are arbitrary, you may prefer other variables.
1. Minimum Mass. 10^20 Kg. (about 1/100th the mass of Pluto).
2. Minimum Diameter. 1,500 Km (about 900 miles)
3. Orbit. Must be in orbit around a sun, and not a planet (therefore, Luna is not a planet, even though it's larger than Pluto).
4. Distance from sun. Not relevant, as long as it is clearly in orbit around the sun. Therefore, a massive sun may have planets dozen's of light-years away.
5. Is not itself a sun. That would be a binary or higher system.
6. Must not be in interstellar space, not associated with a sun or suns.
7. Not in a field of other bodies with the same approximate orbit. That would leave out anything in the Asteroid Belt and Oort Cloud.So, I say that Pluto is a planet.
Now, how about "Xena" (aka, 2003 UB313)? To Hades (Greek God of the underworld) with conventions for naming planets. Xena is perfect. And Gabrielle for the moon. If they can name a comet "Hale-Bopp" why not a planet after the Warrior Princess.
Now, I disagree with Charon and Ceres getting a promotion.
One shares an orbital field with thousands of smaller objects that have more mass in total that Ceres.
The other circles a planet, it's a moon. If Charon is a planet, then what about Luna and some moons of Jupiter and Saturn?
2006-08-19 08:55:51 · answer #1 · answered by SPLATT 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think it is quite fun the changes that go on through the years. I remember being in school and learning there were only 9 planets and only Saturn had a ring. My daughter learned there are 12 planets and three of them had rings. I guess by the time I become a grandparent I'll see more planets and rings appear :) !!!
2006-08-19 13:22:59 · answer #2 · answered by Krynne 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i know it would be sooo awesome to have more than like 9 planets. I'm extremely excited and anxious to find out the rersult.
the solar system is a huge thing and i think it deserves to have more than a mere 8 planets. just because planets are far away from the sun, does not mean they aren't planets, ask those goddam.n scientist if Xena is located between mars and Earth, would they classify it as a planets, i bet its a unanimous yes.
2006-08-19 12:38:42 · answer #3 · answered by Man 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I'll never understand exactly how many planets there are again. I went through elementary school being taught that there were nine planets, or maybe eight. Now I'm going to have to learn all over again. This is probably what my parents' generation felt like in the 1960s when all the names of the countries changed in Africa.
2006-08-19 13:02:10 · answer #4 · answered by dunearcher212 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i am interested in the outcome. the solar current system of classifying bodies in the solar system is too simple. the solar system is more complex. i think i can accept defining a planet as any body that orbit a star, has a mass more than about 5 x 10e+20 kg, so it is spherical, and is less massive than a brown dwarf. it is also necessary to classify planets into smaller groups so that each member of the group has specific characteristics.
2006-08-19 15:40:59 · answer #5 · answered by warm soapy water 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The importants of planetary assignments is that new categories would be more useful in describing physical aspects of bodies of mass. I imagine there will be some sort of definition that will be used for any body that has enough mass to form a spherical shape withint some tolerance. Those bodies that don't have enough mass to form a sphere would also be have several categories to best describe their orbits and composition.
I imiagine that the committee will also need to use the existing terms as much as possible with as little distortions in meaning as possible.
2006-08-19 14:49:37 · answer #6 · answered by Alan Turing 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
yes it'll be great if that happens and we are given a new definition for a "planet" but i wonder if there will be some weird outcome of this like we will discover a comet that has a circular orbit. but on another note i think our schools should teach more about our moons there are over 80 moons in our solar system and i think it's about time that we study them for a while now.
2006-08-19 13:57:51 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think that planetary classifications should consider the composition of the object being classified. Ceres is mostly rock..Pluto is largely ice. Rock is not ice. Ceres should not be classed as a Plutron by its size alone. Let rocky bodies large enough to gravitate to a spherical shape be classed as Cereons, instead.
2006-08-19 13:24:39 · answer #8 · answered by David S 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Personally, I would like to have more planets, but in reality what does it amount to? More memorizing for schoolchildren.
If we see something interesting, we won't decide not to study it because it isn't a planet. If Pluto is not a planet anymore, we will still study it. We are going to study "2003 UB313", also, I'm sure.
2006-08-19 13:24:07 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'm excited about this!!!! The universe is a huge place so it is cool to know that there are more than nine planets in our solar system. It would be even cooler if we found life on these planets too!!!!
2006-08-19 12:54:01 · answer #10 · answered by Krissy 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋