Nov 25, 2009
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Solar System To Have 12 Planets

free web hosting

Read Latest Entries..: (Post #49) by iGuest on Mar 4 2008, 02:59 AM.
hello! Solar System To Have 12 Planets There should be 11 planets because they never said you could not include dwarf planets. I am 11 just to tell.-reply by Robot Rage
Read the FIRST post of this Topic. - Express your Opinion! Contribute Knowledge :-).

Open Discussion & Free Web Hosting > General Discussion > Science & Technology

Solar System To Have 12 Planets

xboxrulz
QUOTE

IPB Image

Feeling crowded? Scientists want to add 3 planets to our solar system
Last Updated Wed, 16 Aug 2006 07:42:14 EDT
The Associated Press

The universe really is expanding — astronomers are proposing to rewrite the textbooks to say our solar system has 12 planets, rather than the nine memorized by generations of schoolchildren.

IPB Image

This photo illustration shows the largest known Kuiper Belt objects. Xena, at about 2,400 kilometres across, is slightly larger than Pluto, which is about 2,290 kilometres across. (AP Photo/NASA)

Much-maligned Pluto would remain a planet — and its largest moon plus two other heavenly bodies would join Earth's neighbourhood — under a draft resolution to be formally presented Wednesday to the International Astronomical Union, the arbiter of what is and isn't a planet.

"Yes, Virginia, Pluto is a planet," quipped Richard Binzel, a professor of planetary science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

The proposal could change, however: Binzel and the other nearly 2,500 astronomers from 75 countries meeting in Prague to hammer out a universal definition of a planet will hold two brainstorming sessions before they vote on the resolution next week. But the draft comes from the IAU's executive committee, which only submits recommendations likely to gain two-thirds approval from the group.

Besides reaffirming the status of puny Pluto — whose detractors insist it shouldn't be a planet at all — the new lineup would include 2003 UB313, the farthest-known object in the solar system and nicknamed Xena; Pluto's largest moon, Charon; and the asteroid Ceres, which was a planet in the 1800s before it was demoted.

The panel also proposed a new category of planets called "plutons," referring to Pluto-like objects that reside in the Kuiper Belt, a mysterious, disc-shaped zone beyond Neptune containing thousands of comets and planetary objects. Pluto itself and two of the potential newcomers — Charon and 2003 UB313 — would be plutons.

Astronomers also were being asked to drop the term "minor planets," which long has been used to collectively describe asteroids, comets and other non-planetary objects. Instead, those would become collectively known as "small solar system bodies."

If the resolution is approved, the 12 planets in our solar system listed in order of their proximity to the sun would be Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Ceres, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, Charon, and the provisionally named 2003 UB313. Its discoverer, Michael Brown of the California Institute of Technology, nicknamed it Xena after the warrior princess of TV fame but it likely would be rechristened something else later, the panel said.

The galactic shift would force publishers to update encyclopedias and school textbooks and elementary school teachers to rejig the planet mobiles hanging from classroom ceilings. Far outside the realm of science, astrologers accustomed to making predictions based on the classic nine might have to tweak their formulas.

Even if the list of planets is officially lengthened when astronomers vote Aug. 24, it's not likely to stay that way for long: The IAU has a "watchlist" of at least a dozen other potential candidates that could become planets once more is known about their sizes and orbits.

"The solar system is a middle-aged star and like all middle-aged things, its waistline is expanding," said Jack Horkheimer, director of the Miami Space Transit Planetarium in the United States and host of Public Broadcasting's Stargazer television show.

Opponents of Pluto, which was named a planet in 1930, still might spoil for a fight. Earth's moon is larger; so is 2003 UB313 (Xena), about 112 kilometres wider.

But the IAU said Pluto meets its proposed new definition of a planet: any round object larger than 800 kilometres in diameter that orbits the sun and has a mass roughly one-12,000th that of Earth. Moons and asteroids will make the grade if they meet those basic tests.

Roundness is key, experts said, because it indicates an object has enough self-gravity to pull itself into a spherical shape. Yet Earth's moon wouldn't qualify because the two bodies' common centre of gravity lies below the surface of the Earth.

"People were probably wondering: if they take away Pluto, is Rhode Island next?" Binzel quipped.

"There are as many opinions about Pluto as there are astronomers. But Pluto has gravity on its side. By the physics of our proposed definition, Pluto makes it by a long shot."

IAU president Ronald Ekers said the draft definition, two years in the making, was an attempt to reach a cosmic consensus and end decades of quarrelling.

"We don't want an American version, a European version and a Japanese version" of what constitutes a planet, he said.

Neil deGrasse Tyson, director of the Hayden Planetarium at New York City's American Museum of Natural History — miscast as a "Pluto-hater," he contends, merely because Pluto was excluded from a solar system exhibit — said the new guidelines would clear up the fuzzier aspects of the Milky Way.

"For the first time since ancient Greece, we have an unambiguous definition," he said.

"Now, when an object is debated as a possible planet, the answer can be swift and clear."


Source: http://www.cbc.ca/story/science/national/2...olarsystem.html

Your comments?

xboxrulz

 

 

 


Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

Pharoah
Well it seems wierd how they were first wanting to take away pluto, and now they're adding planets. It all boils down to arbitrary definitions of what makes a planet. Very strange the way scientists' minds work, isn't it.

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

kgd2006
Scientists are always changing facts as new evidence is discovered. So it's really hard to confirm if what is said to be true. And while this maybe a little off topic I always hoped they would investigate more closely on the life on other planets, because I know there has got to be life out there. We cant be the only ones that are roaming around in this universe. There has always been theories of little green men, known as aliens. But I really want to know for a "fact" that there are them out there or something that is out there that would be of a threat to us, other than a wannabie "hitler" or terrorist on our own planet.

Many movies have been released thoeorizing these events, and I know there has to be some truth behind what is behind the theories. I also wanted to know since our resources on earth are slowly depleting will we soon need to travel to the next planet to find more resources? I heard rumors that we are trying to advance our exporation to be able to travel to Mars.

I find that very interesting, and we are a step closer with the mini rovers exploring that region of the universe. The universe is a amazing place with vast amount of planets that no one knows anything specfifically. The most interesting thing is that we cannot be the only ones with technological advances, im wondering if other planets have their own type of technological advances like ours.

As I am writing this post, all it reminds me of is Star wars, Star trek, and those a like that expands our curiousity of life outside of the world we are living in. In the future years coming, I am hoping the information that I am asking now will be answered in the upcoming years.

 

 

 


Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

Pharoah
I also find things like this very interesting, I was just pointing out that sometimes work is based on defining things only so they can be put into a nice little category, rather than finding out more.

BTW your post was very deep smile.gif

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

lonebyrd
I actually think it's a great step forward that scientist have finally defined what a planet is. Though, children will hate having to learn the um-teen number of planets extra they are eventully going to add to our solar system. But now, they will finally have a clear cut guideline, no debates and arguing. From what I read, there have been many debates going on in our solar system about Pluto.

And calling all those astroids and comets mini planets? I'm glad they are going to change that too. Although small solar system bodies is much longer to say, it at least is a little more accurate. Space research, I think, has come a long way, but it has also been slow going.

I agree that there must be more advance civilizations out there somewhere. I think we must somehow get out there, maybe not to meet those other civilizations yet, but to at least get to these other planets and research them. Valueble infomation could be gathered that we could use to help us in our space research, who knows.
We are not alone

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

xboxrulz
nice comments everyone, it was a great read...

However, it only took me 2-3 minutes to memorize the solar system.

Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Cereus, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, Charon, and 2003 UB 313.

xboxrulz

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

-Battery-
i heard about this on the news, i dont really know enough about it to say weather its right or not.

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

austiniskoge
I personally don't think that it's important to know these things. I mean, sure the astronomers need to know but it's not really vital information.

We've gotten along fine for years without knowing what else hangs around us. smile.gif

I'm fine not worrying about any of it.

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

Demonhawk
In some ways I think it is really cool that they concider these umm "planets" part of our solar system, but if you think about it, it also seems very strange. From the beginning of time (for me at least lol since I was born) we have thought that there have always been 9 planets, so it will be strange to suddenly seeing textbooks saying we have 12 planets and what not. But I cant wait to see some nice pictures back from those planets! LETS FIND SOME LIFE PEOPLE! smile.gif

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

Jeigh
With 2003 UB 313 it's like they just gave up... haha. But I dunno, I like the Stephen Colbert response to this, adding new planets takes away from Earth's special planetness haha. But on a more serious note I think they SHOULD define what a planet is but that definitions shouldn't let things like comets become labeled as planets. But that's not for me to decide so I guess it's better then nothing either way.

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

Latest Entries

iGuest
hello!
Solar System To Have 12 Planets

There should be 11 planets because they never said you could not include dwarf planets. I am 11 just to tell.

-reply by Robot Rage

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

bluefish
Personally, I really don't see the reason for all the fuss about Pluto, etc. The way we define "Planet" is human - if we call the Sun a planet, that doesn't change anything. It's really all in perspective, and adding/removing planets really won't affect anything except teaching, and to be honest, (I think) most people wouldn't really care how many planets they are told there are. The main thing we want is consistency.
Pluto is a planet? Yes. Wait - no. Maybe. Ask someone else.
Rather than having these debates, people should focus on more important things and keep our terms consistent.

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

Takumi-san
I believe they should change and add the new planets if they are going to keep them as planets and not remove them. Being cumbersome, I don't think they should reteach everyone, but the younger kids and from that class onwards. As for those past, they shouldn't have to learn it because it would be a tad harder to change the way of thought of what is a planet and what isn't a planet. I don't even think planet should be a describing word either. Planet should be like a reference to just all of the rock (and gas, etc. if you include Jupiter) bodies because currently it is undefinable to the planets as they are changing them.

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

wellingtonboots
It really depends on what you can call a planet because pluto is now being struck off the planets list and is going to put into a whole new category. However I think sedna is going to become a planet because it is acutally bigger than pluto and so can be classed as a planet.

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

unimatrix
I vote that we limit the definition of a planet to those celetrial bodies with intelligent life upon them, which by definition, would make the Earth just another space rock while the Dolphins decide whether or not humans are considered "intelligent"

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)


Got an Opinion! Express your Views! (no registration):-
Add your Reply/ Opinion/ Views/ Comments/ Suggestion/ Questions/ Queries etc.
Posts with decent grammar & English will be accepted and please refrain from profanities.
For asking a Question, We recommend you to sign-up (for free) so that you can track the topic easily.

Nature of your Post*: Opinion/ Reply/ Comments
Question/Query
Feedback to us.
       
Name   Email
Title/Question*

This textarea will convert to Rich-Text automatically (IE, Firefox, Chrome)

Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

See Also,

*SIMILAR VIDEOS*
Searching Video's for solar, system, 12, planets
advertisement



Solar System To Have 12 Planets

Affordable Web Hosting, Low cost Web Hosting - ComputingHost.com