I read this on Slashdot a while ago, but now it seems official:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005 ... lanetx.htm
I don't know why, but this is damn exciting. I mean, stuff that will mean a change to all the science books doesn't happen every day. We've lived in a 10 planet solar system all along...
10th planet discovered
-
Jon the Great
- DBB Captain
- Posts: 538
- Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2003 3:01 am
- Location: California
I wonder what they are going to call it.
Its going to be a member of Roman or Greek mythology of the top tier - and using a name that doesn't start with a letter already in use.
Something not starting with a E, V, M, J, S, N, U or P.
Of course, they could just call it Persephone, and chalk that one as a tribute to all those that called the 10th planet that in various works of fiction.
Its going to be a member of Roman or Greek mythology of the top tier - and using a name that doesn't start with a letter already in use.
Something not starting with a E, V, M, J, S, N, U or P.
Of course, they could just call it Persephone, and chalk that one as a tribute to all those that called the 10th planet that in various works of fiction.
Oh well... 9 or 10, who cares?
Sounds like a lot of guesswork going on for a planet so close. Planets in other solar systems have been detected before this one, I wonder why. Surely it's presence should have had gravitational consequences we should have noticed much sooner?
Anyway, the only thing that amazes me is that it's just been found now and not earlier. It's not as if it just popped up there, if it's there now it's been there all along.
Sounds like a lot of guesswork going on for a planet so close. Planets in other solar systems have been detected before this one, I wonder why. Surely it's presence should have had gravitational consequences we should have noticed much sooner?
Anyway, the only thing that amazes me is that it's just been found now and not earlier. It's not as if it just popped up there, if it's there now it's been there all along.
-
Flatlander
- DBB Fleet Admiral
- Posts: 2411
- Joined: Thu Apr 15, 1999 2:01 am
- Location: Pennsylvania
- Contact:
Actually they are still debating if Sedna is a planet and if so, it would actually make the 11th. And Sedna is MUUUUCH further out than this new discovery.
http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/db_shm? ... rch=Search
http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/db_shm? ... rch=Search
Well, Sedna's aphelion is 942 AU, but it's approaching its perihelion of 76 AU, so at the moment it is closer to the Sun than the new object and will be for quite a while.
However, given Sedna's orbit, we were very lucky to be at the prime time to detect it. It begs the question "what's on it's way in closer that was way out before?" Maybe there's stuff even bigger than this new object.
Now, isn't the termination shock at about 100 AU? I don't know much about solar winds, but wouldn't that affect it's orbit in some way?
One other neat tidbit of astronomy that I learned yesterday was the existance of a couple "minor planets" in the asteroid belt that are so large they still maintain a spherical shape (Ex: Ceres, Vesta, Pallas, etc).
However, given Sedna's orbit, we were very lucky to be at the prime time to detect it. It begs the question "what's on it's way in closer that was way out before?" Maybe there's stuff even bigger than this new object.
Now, isn't the termination shock at about 100 AU? I don't know much about solar winds, but wouldn't that affect it's orbit in some way?
One other neat tidbit of astronomy that I learned yesterday was the existance of a couple "minor planets" in the asteroid belt that are so large they still maintain a spherical shape (Ex: Ceres, Vesta, Pallas, etc).
-
Jon the Great
- DBB Captain
- Posts: 538
- Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2003 3:01 am
- Location: California
-
Mobius
- DBB_Master
- Posts: 7940
- Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2001 2:01 am
- Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
- Contact:
Tricord, you know as well as I do that the gravitic effects of an object reduces with the ratio of the inverse square of the distance - hence the very long distance means its effects on the rest of the solar system are essentially unmeasurable.
As far as being a 10th planet is concerned - that is a real controversy.
My personal feeling is that if it orbits the sun, and has enough mass that its own gravity has turned it into a spherical shape, then it's a planet. If an object orbits a planet it's a moon.
On the flip side, if its own gravity isn't great enough to form a sphere, then it should be called an asteroid.
It's funny isn't it - because if you take a look at everything within the boundaries of the Solar Wind, and ask "What is the solar system" then the answer surely, is nothing more than; "The Sun, Jupiter, and a bunch of other junk". Because, combined, the Sun and Jupiter make up 99% of the mass of the slar system.
As far as being a 10th planet is concerned - that is a real controversy.
My personal feeling is that if it orbits the sun, and has enough mass that its own gravity has turned it into a spherical shape, then it's a planet. If an object orbits a planet it's a moon.
On the flip side, if its own gravity isn't great enough to form a sphere, then it should be called an asteroid.
It's funny isn't it - because if you take a look at everything within the boundaries of the Solar Wind, and ask "What is the solar system" then the answer surely, is nothing more than; "The Sun, Jupiter, and a bunch of other junk". Because, combined, the Sun and Jupiter make up 99% of the mass of the slar system.
What a faith in human perception. You realise that by acknowledging we don't even know all planets in our own solar system, we know jack ★■◆● about everything beyond?Mobius wrote:Tricord, you know as well as I do that the gravitic effects of an object reduces with the ratio of the inverse square of the distance - hence the very long distance means its effects on the rest of the solar system are essentially unmeasurable.
That's why observation bores me. Reflection and prediction is much more interesting. That's just me though, to each his own.
There was some controversy several years back as to whether or not Pluto should even been referred to as a planet; the general consensus is to keep it classified as one for tradition's sake. Pluto, Sedna, and this new body are all members of the Kuiper belt, albeit much larger than your average Kuiper belt object. For anyone who doesn't know, the Kuiper belt is an area from about 30 to 50 AUs away from the Sun composed of planetoids made of ice and rock; they're pretty much leftovers from the formation of the solar system. Many short-period comets are Kuiper belt objects.
I'm very excited about the discovery of this new object, since studying it may help give us much greater insight into the solar system's formation and the behavior of Kuiper belt objects. As to whether or not it should be formally classified as a planet, the jury's still out for me. Some astronomers have said that, were Pluto discovered today, it would most likely not have been classified as a planet. In some sense, that's the correct judgment. The rocky inner planets and the gaseous outer planets all fit into two archetypes based on their distance from the Sun at the time of their formation. They were all formed by the combined attraction of many much smaller planetoids. (Even the gas giants have solid material at their cores; since they formed farther from the Sun, the ice present there in the early solar system allowed them to form much larger masses that then attracted hydrogen gas to them.) Pluto, however, is different; it's one of a number of leftover planetoids that never managed to form a full-fledged planet. That being said, Pluto's distinctively large size makes it unique and was most likely what earned it its planetary classification in the first place (that, and the fact that the knowledge of the Kuiper belt was virtually nonexistent at the time of its discovery). Both because of this, and because of tradition, I think that Pluto should stay classified as a planet; since this new object is most likely larger than Pluto, its status as a planet seems almost guaranteed. I guess it's up to the International Astronomical Union to make the final call. I just hope they choose a good name.
I'm very excited about the discovery of this new object, since studying it may help give us much greater insight into the solar system's formation and the behavior of Kuiper belt objects. As to whether or not it should be formally classified as a planet, the jury's still out for me. Some astronomers have said that, were Pluto discovered today, it would most likely not have been classified as a planet. In some sense, that's the correct judgment. The rocky inner planets and the gaseous outer planets all fit into two archetypes based on their distance from the Sun at the time of their formation. They were all formed by the combined attraction of many much smaller planetoids. (Even the gas giants have solid material at their cores; since they formed farther from the Sun, the ice present there in the early solar system allowed them to form much larger masses that then attracted hydrogen gas to them.) Pluto, however, is different; it's one of a number of leftover planetoids that never managed to form a full-fledged planet. That being said, Pluto's distinctively large size makes it unique and was most likely what earned it its planetary classification in the first place (that, and the fact that the knowledge of the Kuiper belt was virtually nonexistent at the time of its discovery). Both because of this, and because of tradition, I think that Pluto should stay classified as a planet; since this new object is most likely larger than Pluto, its status as a planet seems almost guaranteed. I guess it's up to the International Astronomical Union to make the final call. I just hope they choose a good name.
-
Jon the Great
- DBB Captain
- Posts: 538
- Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2003 3:01 am
- Location: California
-
Bad@sskow
- DBB Captain
- Posts: 561
- Joined: Thu Nov 04, 1999 3:01 am
- Location: Hugo,Minnesota,United States
The general definition... which is quite general is (as taken from space.about.com) "A planet is a spherical ball of rock and/or gas that orbits a star." This is quite general.. but what leaves out asteroids and comets is that they do not orbit the sun in normal paths like Earth for instance, but were caught by its gravity and usually just slingshot around it and shoot off into space again. This is just my two cents, from what I have learned in an Astronomy class I took.... I'm no expert at Astronomy, maybe someone else here is.Capm wrote:I would say, if it is orbiting the sun, then it meets 1 criteria for being a planet. The question is what are the other criteria and do these object meet them? If so, then they are planets - if not, they are asteriods.
This new find orbits the sun just like the other known planets, therefore I believe it is a planet, and in my opinion I think it will end up officially being the 10th known planet in our solar system.
-
Richard Cranium
- DBB Supporter
- Posts: 1444
- Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2001 2:01 am
-
Richard Cranium
- DBB Supporter
- Posts: 1444
- Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2001 2:01 am
Looks like this has been known for a while now.
http://science.slashdot.org/science/05/ ... 172&tid=14
http://science.slashdot.org/science/05/ ... 172&tid=14
Yes, of course it does. Every day. I remember 5th grade man, it was like BAM! Fourth primary color found! Pentagons now have six points! Nucleus actually has third particle made of Gobstoppers!!Dedman wrote:The field of science does that every day. I am still not clear on why it is cool.Topher wrote:Because it redefines a basic piece of elementary school common knowledge?Dedman wrote:Why is this considered cool?
It was awesome.