New Planets?
 

Well, on the news lately there's been talk about the new, proposed definition for a planet. It follows;

A planet is a celestial body that (a) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (b) is in orbit around a star, and is neither a star nor a satellite of a planet.

Stolen shamelessly from Wikipedia. Anyhow, this would demand the immediate edition of three new planets: Ceres (In the asteroid belt and once WAS classified as a planet) Charon with Pluto as a double planet (Because their combined centre of gravity is not inside either), and 2003 UB313 or "Xena" *shudders*, being the larger-than-Pluto object that started the latest round of arguments. And those are just the first three. Dozens are candidates, and hundreds may still be undiscovered that follow this classification.
What do you think, listeners(readers)? Have another classification scheme to talk to us about? You know, just because there wasn't a thread about this before that I could find mentions the new proposal. Or at all.

I'd use What? But I don't want to overuse it or anything.....

Anyway, thats mighty interesting.

I consider Pluto a planet because it has its own distinct orbit. It doesn't really matter to me how big the object is. Pluto even has a moon.

Yeah, but you don't decide the definition of the word "planet".

Okay. Hopefully this will end this very public "Pluto is a planet! No it Ain't!" egghead slapfight that has been occuring for the past decade.

I think it's excellent they're beginning to finally reach a decision about the definition of a planet. I read about when they'd first started the current round of discussions a few years ago. Back then there were 13 objects in the solar system that could potentially be called planets.

But yes, an actual definition would stop those idiots on QI saying Pluto isn't a planet. Plus I'm evil and want the textbook industry to suffer.

I know. I'm trying to say that even if they decide to reclassify it as a planetoid then it won't change my opinion of it. In my eyes it's a planet. Nothing more, nothing less.

Besides, reclassifying it will only lessen the power of the number nine.

Yes, I read that article, saying that it will be decided whether or not there are 12 or 9 planets in our solar system. But still, if Xena, Charon, and some other 'planet' in the astriod belt, is considered planets, then there still would after to be an agruement where the solar system ends. And if so, they could add more planets.

Not if the decision is made.

The solar system ends where there's nothing in orbit around Sol. ;)

Ugh.

There are so many ways that planets could be reclassified, including the questionable "historical value" method, which requires Pluto be classified as a planet purely because it has been for so long. Also (depending on how you do classify it) the first and only planet discovered in the USA. As it happens, there are quite probably hundreds, if not thousands or millions of Pluto-like planetoids in the dark reaches of the far outer Solar system. If they can't be called planets, then Pluto can't be, as many are bigger than it is. Pluto was only considered to be a planet on its discovery because what turned out to be Charon was thought to be part of Pluto's mass. However, if Pluto and Charon are classed as Twin planets, then that might be a way around that particular issue. Though nowhere near the end of it.

I don't think it is a planet. I would say its a moon. What do I know? I could be worng. How far is Earth to pluto? A intelligent guess would be very.......far away! It would takes us few years or more to discover some kind of fuel technolgy or 'jump' technology to actually see this "planet"

You guys are saying its called Xena? :confused:

A moon is a natural satellite orbiting a planet. So Pluto is not a moon. Charon has been called Pluto's moon,, but as SergentBig correctly stated, they are so close together and so similar in size that they both orbit a point between the two.

Xena sounds like something right out of Star Trek. I think it's excitin'...only a matter of time if we discover one with life.

*magnifying glass* Arrrgh, the aliens faces are melting!

Unlikely on these... "planets". These places are close to absolute zero, and there is very little light. Life is much more likely on the planets and moons being discovered in obit around other stars. However, we can only find them by detecting the wobbles on those stars, evidence of the gravitational pull of its planets. This only works with large planets, and gives us very little idea as to the conditions on those worlds.

Actually it sounds like something out of Xena: Warrior Princess. Luckily it's only a nickname, and not the name submitted to the IAU by its discoverer.

Hmmm, the IAU votes on this new definition in three days. I hope the textbook printers are prepared, but personally I think this alternative proposal has a fighting chance of being many people's preference. If Mike Smith's prediction that 200 planets could be recognised in our solar system, I think there would be desperate pleas for a redefinition.

Try 29-51 AU (the distance between the sun and Earth).

Well, the New Horizons probe left for Pluto in January and will arrive in approximately nine years.