Community > Forum > The Spaceflight Cafe > Large Planet discovered outside Pluto

Large Planet discovered outside Pluto

Posted by: koxinga - Sat Jul 30, 2005 8:48 am
Post new topic Reply to topic
 [ 32 posts ] 
Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Large Planet discovered outside Pluto 
Author Message
Space Walker
Space Walker
avatar
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2004 2:00 pm
Posts: 213
Post Large Planet discovered outside Pluto   Posted on: Sat Jul 30, 2005 8:48 am
Yeah yeah, over the years there were a couple of candidates (ie Sedna) but this one appears to be well and truly bigger than Pluto.

I chose not to use the 10th Planet as the title. That is to be debated. 8)

Just search around the usual space webbies (space.com, spacedaily.com) and you will find the news.


Back to top
Profile
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2003 8:46 pm
Posts: 1215
Location: Kapellen, Antwerp, Belgium, Europe, Planet Earth, the Milky Way Galaxy
Post    Posted on: Sat Jul 30, 2005 11:26 am
Yeps really freaky:
BREAKING NEWS: Object Bigger than Pluto Discovered, Called 10th Planet

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/0 ... lanet.html

Yesterday they still claimed it was FALSE that it was bigger than pluto..
EDIT: humm it seems to be even AN OTHER space object/planet

_________________
Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible. - Lord Kelvin, 1892


Back to top
Profile WWW
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Sat Jul 30, 2005 2:06 pm
Some by-thoght regarding space flight/travel because it is 97 AU away and very slowly orbiting: Ii is in nearly the same direction relative to the galctical background and the CMB - different to fast moving planets like Mars and even Saturn. So a probe going there doesn't need to or mustn't adjust an orbit that much - it could go straight outwards for a very long time. It simply has to be fast...



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Space Walker
Space Walker
avatar
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2004 2:00 pm
Posts: 213
Post    Posted on: Sat Jul 30, 2005 3:57 pm
It would be interesting to see how planets are being defined. I would not be surprised in the next few years, astronomers will find more of such large Kuniper belt 'objects'.

The common design of the solar system (ie the Sun followed by the 9 planets) as taught will have to be redefined because surrounding the system appears to be a very sizable and significant Kuniper/Oort cloud cluster.


Back to top
Profile
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:08 am
The discussion about the definitions is puzzling me a little bit.

Of course I understand the points. But the trivial definition of the ancient Greeks is a very clear one: a planet is a "star" orbiting sun. Logically no sun can be a planet regardless of being a member of a multiple-star system where two or more suns are orbiting each other.

In the current discussion the criteria size and inclination seem to be its causes. To say that an orbiting object is no planet because it is small or too small has nothing to do with the difference between bodies sending out self-generated light and other bodies simply reflecting the light sent out by another body only and orbiting another body. If size is used a scriterion would there be doubts some day if stars significantly smaller than our sun should be called stars really? Could such a discussion be there?

I could imagine that the solution is to keep the definition the ancient Greeks used and to consider this definition to be the highest possible aggregate. At the level(s) below that aggregate inclination could be a criterion to differe several kinds of planets while size could be a second-dimension-criterion differeing planets into Earth-sized-planets, planetoids (asteroids), rocks and giants. A third-dimension-criterion could be the region where the planet is orbiting (Kuiper-Belt, asteroid-belt, Oort's cloud). The fourth-dimension-criterion - which I should have listed as second- or third-dimension-criterion - should be excentricity.

Brown dwarfs could be considered to be third kind of bodies between stars and bodies not sending out light themselves whereas bodies floating throught space which don't send out any light themselves would be no planets but dark bodies simply.

What about moons now and dark objects orbiting brown dwarfs? Is a dark body orbiting a brown dwarf or a non-star object which doesn't orbit a star a moon or a planet? Why not call a dark body orbiting a brwon dwarf a planet? There could be other dark bodies orbiting a larger dark object which orbits a brwon dwarf.

What I wanted to illustrate - isn't it just a matter of systematics?



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Spaceflight Participant
Spaceflight Participant
User avatar
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 11:09 pm
Posts: 88
Location: Austin, TX
Post    Posted on: Sun Jul 31, 2005 9:33 pm
How about this: any object large enough to be roughly spherical in shape is a planet?


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
User avatar
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2003 9:22 pm
Posts: 843
Location: New York, NY
Post    Posted on: Mon Aug 01, 2005 3:12 am
Marshall wrote:
How about this: any object large enough to be roughly spherical in shape is a planet?


so the moon's a planet. and there are several planets orbiting each of the gas giants. ok. you see my point. no way to differentiate between those then. i don't remember if eros or any of the other large asteroids are spherical.....

_________________
Cornell 2010- Applied and Engineering Physics

Software Developer

Also, check out my fractals


Back to top
Profile
Spaceflight Participant
Spaceflight Participant
User avatar
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 11:09 pm
Posts: 88
Location: Austin, TX
Post    Posted on: Mon Aug 01, 2005 4:34 am
Ok, so if it orbits the sun, rather than a planet, AND it's spherical, then it's a planet? Never heard about any asteroids being spherical, but why don't they want to let them in?


Back to top
Profile
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Mon Aug 01, 2005 7:27 am
As far as I know the asteroid Ceres is spherical - while Eros is shaped like a potato.

To use the shape as a criterion for planet/non-planet would increase the puzzling image of the debate of the astronomers. That discussion seems to be a philosophical one merely - they want to get a definition that assists research and theory: detection, observation, explanation, theories, unification of theories...

What I said in my post would include all comets for example - their only difference to planets and asteroids are their comas and their trails. Bu we do not know would would happen if the nine planets would move as fast as comets and have that excentricities of orbit - their atmospheres may form as trails and comas. And as far as I know the radiation belts have the shape of trails.

So comets simply may be special forms of planets as well as potato-shaped asteroids etc.

Just this moment I could imagine that for space travel different definitions may be required compared to astronomy...



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
User avatar
Joined: Sat May 22, 2004 8:59 am
Posts: 578
Location: Zurich
Post    Posted on: Tue Aug 02, 2005 8:04 am
Marshall ... I think these days being called a "planet" is the result of an arbitrary decision which becomes generally agreed upon. As koxinga points out, it can come down to a debate.

Trying to formulate hard and fast rules about this sort of thing is difficult if you dont want to exclude the other planets, and less fun than the existing "rules of thumb" anyway.

Aren't some people still debating whether or not pluto is actually a planet? And isn't mercury smaller than titan? Etc, etc.

DKH

_________________
Per aspera ad astra


Back to top
Profile
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 6:15 pm
Posts: 1233
Location: London, England
Post    Posted on: Tue Aug 02, 2005 8:51 am
Even Space.com are getting into the argument.

http://space.com/scienceastronomy/05080 ... ition.html

We'll get to the point where nothing can be called a planet and the Earth is classified as an asteroid, people think to much. :)

_________________
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Walker
Space Walker
avatar
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2004 2:00 pm
Posts: 213
Post    Posted on: Tue Aug 02, 2005 2:00 pm
Defination of Planet in Dictionary.com
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=planet

The tricky issue is not No.10. The real issue is Pluto. Why?

If Pluto is a planet, logically No.10 should be one. And this opens up a whole can of worms because of the strong possibility of finding more Kuiper belts objects of similar sizes and orbits. Any attempt to define No.10 as as not a planet would cause Pluto to come under similar examination.

What spac.com is trying to say is Pluto, on hindsight, should have never been classified as a planet those years ago. It is now impossible to 'unmake' the title and this abberation has now come back to bite us. 8)


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
User avatar
Joined: Sat May 22, 2004 8:59 am
Posts: 578
Location: Zurich
Post    Posted on: Tue Aug 02, 2005 2:35 pm
Storm. Teacup. There's nothing logical about it. Doesn't have to be. Whether or not a big floating rock should or should not be given a particular category definition doesn't make any difference whatsoever - except to a pedant.

DKH

_________________
Per aspera ad astra


Back to top
Profile
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Tue Aug 02, 2005 2:56 pm
One source of reasonable categorization I could add: the theory of planet formation.

Does each member of that family of theories result in planets plus some remainders which then wouldn't be planets? I can remember at least one but are all of them doing so?

Or will that theory have to be altered if the scientific debate results in a workable definition? ...



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Spaceflight Participant
Spaceflight Participant
User avatar
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 11:09 pm
Posts: 88
Location: Austin, TX
Post    Posted on: Wed Aug 03, 2005 5:29 am
Andy Hill wrote:
Quote:
We'll get to the point where nothing can be called a planet and the Earth is classified as an asteroid, people think to much.


My thoughts exactly! :wink:


Back to top
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 32 posts ] 
 

Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests


© 2014 The International Space Fellowship, developed by Gabitasoft Interactive. All Rights Reserved.  Privacy Policy | Terms of Use