New planets discovered orbiting our Sun
Discussion
Eric Mc said:
Pluto has FIVE moons (or is a six planet system as Derek would have us believe 
) - Charon, Nix, Styx, Kerberus and Hydra (not soft rock band by the way).
Pluto would be a silly situations with Derek's suggested nomenclature with a dwarf planet (Pluto) having five actual "planets" orbiting it. It would all get very confusing.
I think the current nomenclature is pretty much the best they've come up with so far. Things need to change when new discoveries are made.
The reason Pluto's definition was changed from "Planet" to "Dwarf Planet" was the discovery of literally hundreds if not thousands of Pluto like objects orbiting further out - what are referred to as Kuiper Belt Objects. It seems Pluto is really a member of that group rather than a bona fide planet in the normal sense.
At the end of the day, what we chose to call things is only for our own convenience. The objects just "are" - whatever we name them as.
As I said earlier, getting hung up on what category we want to place planetary bodies in is really a waste of time. It's far better to devote time and effort to actually studying them and trying to understand WHAT they actually are and how geological processes work on them.
Just to clarify: it is not my suggestion about the nomenclature of planets. Much as I would like to claim responsibility, I think that Stern's authority overrides mine, and by some distance. ) - Charon, Nix, Styx, Kerberus and Hydra (not soft rock band by the way).Pluto would be a silly situations with Derek's suggested nomenclature with a dwarf planet (Pluto) having five actual "planets" orbiting it. It would all get very confusing.
I think the current nomenclature is pretty much the best they've come up with so far. Things need to change when new discoveries are made.
The reason Pluto's definition was changed from "Planet" to "Dwarf Planet" was the discovery of literally hundreds if not thousands of Pluto like objects orbiting further out - what are referred to as Kuiper Belt Objects. It seems Pluto is really a member of that group rather than a bona fide planet in the normal sense.
At the end of the day, what we chose to call things is only for our own convenience. The objects just "are" - whatever we name them as.
As I said earlier, getting hung up on what category we want to place planetary bodies in is really a waste of time. It's far better to devote time and effort to actually studying them and trying to understand WHAT they actually are and how geological processes work on them.
Also regarding the dual dwarf planetary system of Pluto/Charon, if you search online you will find that there has been such a suggestion for years, from 1978 I would assume.
You suggest things are what we decide to call them. I think that's the point Stern is making. He is only after clarifying the definition, ensuring that it is clearer and more useful. Nothing stops us from changing the names. It is illogical to call them planets, or even wanderers, just because that's what we always called them.
AshVX220 said:
This whole argument is quite daft IMHO, and stems from clever people trying to be too clever.
It should be a lot simpler, if it orbits a Star, it's a planet. If it orbits a planet, it's a moon.
How hard does it need to be?!?!
Well it doesn't have to be hard. Jupiter is mostly gas, and it's definitely a planet. It should be a lot simpler, if it orbits a Star, it's a planet. If it orbits a planet, it's a moon.
How hard does it need to be?!?!
ash73 said:
Eric Mc said:
At the end of the day, what we chose to call things is only for our own convenience. The objects just "are" - whatever we name them as.
As I said earlier, getting hung up on what category we want to place planetary bodies in is really a waste of time. It's far better to devote time and effort to actually studying them and trying to understand WHAT they actually are and how geological processes work on them.
I'm surprised at you Eric, presumably you would agree the correct classification of the tree of life is important and has resulted in some interesting theories (e.g. whales and hippos); why be so slack with cosmology?As I said earlier, getting hung up on what category we want to place planetary bodies in is really a waste of time. It's far better to devote time and effort to actually studying them and trying to understand WHAT they actually are and how geological processes work on them.
Derek Smith said:
This is seven in the eye for the IAU.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/moon-rises-... (Apologies for quoting a source that does not capitalise Moon.)
It would appear that there are many more planets orbiting the Sun that originally thought; seven in fact. This argument is over the Moon, Europa, Ganymede, Titan and Enceladus. Not to forget that big one sometimes orbiting in the Ort Cloud.
It will come as no surprise to hear that Alan Stern, of New Horizons fame, is the leader in the campaign to get these moons labelled as planets.
I remember listening to, I think, Carl Sagan when he said the proper way to think of the Earth and Moon is as a dual planet system. His point was more gravitational than size I think but I agreed with him. I hope he appreciated my support.
I thought the Dwarf Planets were the following only: Ceres | Pluto | Eris | Haumea | Makemake !!!http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/moon-rises-... (Apologies for quoting a source that does not capitalise Moon.)
It would appear that there are many more planets orbiting the Sun that originally thought; seven in fact. This argument is over the Moon, Europa, Ganymede, Titan and Enceladus. Not to forget that big one sometimes orbiting in the Ort Cloud.
It will come as no surprise to hear that Alan Stern, of New Horizons fame, is the leader in the campaign to get these moons labelled as planets.
I remember listening to, I think, Carl Sagan when he said the proper way to think of the Earth and Moon is as a dual planet system. His point was more gravitational than size I think but I agreed with him. I hope he appreciated my support.
And DeeDee - http://www.sciencealert.com/astronomers-just-inves...
"Astronomers have found a planetary body lurking at the edge of our Solar System, and they've named it DeeDee.
DeeDee, which stands for Distant Dwarf, was first discovered late 2016, but little was known about its physical structure. Now, new data from the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) has revealed details about the mysterious object's true identity – and it's even bigger than scientists expected.
According to new data, DeeDee is about two-thirds the size of the dwarf planet Ceres, the largest member of our asteroid belt, and has enough mass to be spherical."
"Astronomers have found a planetary body lurking at the edge of our Solar System, and they've named it DeeDee.
DeeDee, which stands for Distant Dwarf, was first discovered late 2016, but little was known about its physical structure. Now, new data from the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) has revealed details about the mysterious object's true identity – and it's even bigger than scientists expected.
According to new data, DeeDee is about two-thirds the size of the dwarf planet Ceres, the largest member of our asteroid belt, and has enough mass to be spherical."
Hubble or other space based telescopes like it are not designed for that type of work.
The main way planets, dwarf planets, asteroids, comets etc are spotted is by tracing their movement against the background stars.
Modern earth based telescopes, using computer controlled and monitored surveillance software, is the best and most effective way of discovering such objects.
The main way planets, dwarf planets, asteroids, comets etc are spotted is by tracing their movement against the background stars.
Modern earth based telescopes, using computer controlled and monitored surveillance software, is the best and most effective way of discovering such objects.
You didn't really need to mention "Hubble" or Hubble Like" or even "Space Based" as that thype of scope is not really needed or best used for planetary searches.
Planetary searching is a long winded, time consuming task involving a lot of patience and analysing of data. Large space based telescopes are enormously expensive to build, launch and operate and their time is precious. Having a scope like that spending weeks at a time scanning what is in effect empty sky in the hope that something might show up is not the best use of their precious time.
Very good results are now being achieved using relatively small (read "cheap") scopes linked to computer imaging and analysis. It's an ideal use of such telescopes and thousands of dim objects have been discovered in recent years that way - mostly asteroids and comets. But if a concerted effort was made to search for a very, very distant planet using such techniques, I'm sure it will be located - if it's there.
Planetary searching is a long winded, time consuming task involving a lot of patience and analysing of data. Large space based telescopes are enormously expensive to build, launch and operate and their time is precious. Having a scope like that spending weeks at a time scanning what is in effect empty sky in the hope that something might show up is not the best use of their precious time.
Very good results are now being achieved using relatively small (read "cheap") scopes linked to computer imaging and analysis. It's an ideal use of such telescopes and thousands of dim objects have been discovered in recent years that way - mostly asteroids and comets. But if a concerted effort was made to search for a very, very distant planet using such techniques, I'm sure it will be located - if it's there.
The Kepler Space Telescope has discovered and confirmed 2,331 exoplanets since launched in 2009, that's averaging around 1 a day since launch.
https://www.nasa.gov/kepler/discoveries
https://www.nasa.gov/kepler/discoveries
Yes - and that is entirely different to looking for new planets in our own Solar System.
The Kepler technique is not based on actually looking for planets themselves, but looking for the effect extra solar planets have on their parent stars (i.e. making them "wobble" or changes in the light output of the star).
That obviously does not work when looking for additional planets orbiting our own sun.
The Kepler technique is not based on actually looking for planets themselves, but looking for the effect extra solar planets have on their parent stars (i.e. making them "wobble" or changes in the light output of the star).
That obviously does not work when looking for additional planets orbiting our own sun.
More news on a 10th planet - https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23431314-40...
Derek Smith said:
CrutyRammers said:
Indeed. We call them moons so that everyone knows that they orbit the main planet. Calling them planets as well will just mean that we have to come up with another name for "small planet going round a larger one"
Could it not be that a planet can also be a moon? Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff