2006-08-23 18:50:15 · 26 answers · asked by RAJA S 2 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Physics
NO!
There are 8 PLanets (and their moons) and numerous "Kiper Belt" objects.
Period!
2006-08-23 19:36:16 · answer #1 · answered by TommyTrouble 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I don't really like it. We have had 9 planets for a long time, now poor kids in a few years will not know how many planets there are. In fact now the number of planets we have could be anywhere from 100 to millions, based on thier definition. The mistake that was made in the past was to inlcude Pluto as a planet, because it's not really a major planet. So now there are countless other objects that equally deserve the name planet. They should have come up with the term "Major and Minor Planet" They should have made planets with no atmosphere, minor planets, like Pluto and Mercury, and countless others. Then we would have 7 planets. Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune. I don't think any moon should be a plantet, no matter how large, the larger of the pair of orbiting objects is the planet if it has an atmosphere.
2006-08-23 18:57:28 · answer #2 · answered by The Bible (gives Hope) 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Discovery of planets is not a new thing.. This hype also took place a few years ago with the discovery of the 10 th planet "Volcan". The they say its a mistake. Now a days they are even saying that our solar system is losing. Pluto.. The scientists r really confused..
2006-08-23 19:06:59 · answer #3 · answered by Arkajeet D 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The argument about whether Pluto is a planet or something else is as pointless as asking whether Aussie is the world's smallest continent or largest island. Ceres is approximately a spherical asteroid because it is large enough for gravity to squash it into that shape. Eros is smaller and shaped like a potato. Really small asteroids are all sorts of weird shapes. Pluto and Charon have been described as a double planet because they both orbit a centre of mass in the space between them. Earth and Moon are described as a planet and satellite because their centre of mass is inside the Earth. But if the Moon was a bit bigger or a bit further away, so the centre of mass was in space, we wouldn't notice much difference. The trillions of grains of dust in Saturn's rings are all in orbit around Saturn. So how many moons has Saturn got? This debate is just playing with words.
2006-08-23 19:05:50 · answer #4 · answered by zee_prime 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I agree with the answer given by rhsaunders. It is a matter of renaming -- only thing I would add even renaming will have to be jidicious; for example, there is no point in calling the objects in asteroid belt planets -- so I assume that enough care has been taken in this renaming and whatever number it throws up, 9, 10, or 12, I have to learn to live with it and teach the new numbers to my grandchildren when I have them, if I have them ( no sign, not even remote sign of that right now).
2006-08-23 23:26:56 · answer #5 · answered by curiosity_unbounded 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's a bit hard to swallow after so many years of being told that there were only 9 Planets. But Science moves on...-New discoveries are made, criteria are revised, -& it's only logical that adjustments need to be incorperated into the facts as we know them. ... I look at it THIS way; where would many of us be today- if someone back in the late 1700s-said, "MORE States?!- Why should there be MORE States?! -There have always been 13. How are we going to fit more stars on the Flag- or remember their names & locations...?" See what I mean? Progress marches on.
2006-08-23 19:12:24 · answer #6 · answered by Joseph, II 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It is not a question of discovery, it just a question of names. The discovery of new planet-like objects has suggested the need for a revised definition of what exactly a planet is, and the definition proposed by the IAU makes sense.
2006-08-23 18:54:28 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
i heard now theyre claiming there might be as many as 53, all the rest being like pluto, and now theyre debating if pluto should even be considered a planet cuz reaaly its just a ball of ice
if i went 2 outer space id call my ball sack a planet
2006-08-23 18:57:49 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes. They have discovered new objects whose orbit is around the sun and not other planets with their own gravity. Just because they didn't have this exact definition when we were in school-- or the means to detect these objects when we were in school --does not "make it so".
2006-08-23 18:58:11 · answer #9 · answered by Rackjack 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes, but I don't think we should name the new planets after television show characters. They should stick with Roman, Greek or other culture's mythology.
2006-08-23 18:56:02 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The suggested change is about how to classify bodies in our solar system.
Personally I think we need to change they way we do this...
2006-08-23 18:55:35 · answer #11 · answered by o_r_y_g_u_n 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋