Planetfurry BBS

[Rozy]

Everyone knows about about 2003 UB313(being called Xena for now) and how many people are exicted about it being the new planet however much of a critical issue is going through the scientific community. A man, Neil DeGrasse Tyson (now being called The Grinch Who Stole Pluto), wants to rewrite the definition of "planet" which may ultimately deny Pluto and UB313 as planets along with the many other ones like 2003 VB12 (Sedna, a former discovery in 2003), Quaoar, 2004 DW(Orcus), 2002 AW197, Vulcan(or whatever is left over of it), Ixion, and 2003 EL61 (Santa). Along with god knowns how many planet shaped object from the Oort Cloud and Kuipler Belt.

So now everyone is debate what is and is not a planet anymore. So far UB313 may be called a planet but the other object are being put on hold. If you want more info you might want to pick the October 24th issue of Newsweek. Includes pictures.

Whats your opinion on the matter?

[Leonato]

1. Large enough gravitational field to form a sphere of matter.
2. In orbit of a star, not another planet

That is all that is needed to = planet... IMHO

PF's resident Lynx/Domestic Reader/DJ,
Leonato

[The Gryphon]

Was going to write my response but then decided to read leonatos.. which totally says what I was gonna say.

There has long been a debate if pluto is a planet. So far it is still considered one just for historical purposes. This will be interesting to see how it turns out. Thanks for the news update.

*runs off looking for a copy of newsweek*

[beno]

I think if it's got a gravitational force large enough to become a sphere, it orbits a star, it's a planet.

[Vee Are Are Schee]

If it's romantic to call it a planet it should be a planet.

Which means Pluto should stay, and that we should have 10 planets.

[aryeon]

Leonato has it right.
this object is clearly in a orbit around the sun.
that its orbit is not in the standard planetary plain, dosnot exclute it
from being a posible planet.

[Concolor]

A lot of the debate centers around the relationship the object has with the star it orbits. Some comets may be nearly as big as Pluto. They orbit the Sun. But they are not planets.

Basically, if the object is outside Neptune's orbit most of the time (that is, an Oort or Kuiper object) I don't think it ought to be referred to as a planet, no matter its size. Of course, if there were any really large (Mercury-sized or bigger) objects out there, we almost certainly would have detected them by now.

[Elfen_Furry]

Pluto and Mercury are about the same size (Mercury being a bit bigger). And Pluto has its own moon- Chiron, which Mercury & Venus are Moonless.

The debate must be if it has enough mass to have its own gravity (an orbiting moon would be proof of such), then its a planet. Comets could be as big as planets but does not exort enough gravitation yeild to, shall we say, 'pull its own weight around'.

A denser mass means a stronger gravity. Pluto has enough to achive this, but an all ice-ball comet might not.

Pluto is a planet. I really dont care what so-called experts has to say.

[RedneckFur]

I agree with the others...If it forms a sphere and orbits a star, its a planet, regarless of size........I know we have 9 named planets now, but I'm not familiar with those other objects....Assuming that they all are reconised as planets...how many will we have then?

I once heard that another planet was discovered orbiting between the sun and mercury.....is there any truth to this?

If you could give me some links where I can read up on those new planets, I would be very grateful


Redneckfur/Clydesdale

[mwalimu]

Try these links:

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/050729_new_planet.html
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/050802_planet_definition.html
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/hubble_sedna_040414.html
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sedna_pluto_040317.html
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/new_object_040219.html
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/names_game_030812.html

[Pflarrian]

What constitutes a planet?

Now that's a really odd question that doesn't apparently have a correct answer. I am, alas, one of those strange people who plays a certain RPG subworld called SpellJammer (yes, that's 2nd ed AD&D), and lemme tell you, that game has some odd ideas as to what a planet is.

Personally, I would define a planet as:

1: any body of matter, doesn't matter the composition, shape, or anything of the sort as long as it is larger than, say, a mile in diameter or more? They used to classify planets by size at one time. A "Class A" planet was of x size, Class B was y size, and so on.

2: the object must be in orbit about - and you're gonna love THIS phrase - an object at the center of a galactic solar system. NOT all solar systems center on stars. Some of them center on former stars, or really dense masses of iron (if I remember correctly). Just because it's in orbit doesn't mean it's orbiting the right thing, or there wouldn't be moons.

This means that planets could be made ENTIRELY of gas, that a "star" is technically a planet as well, and that, so long as it's in orbit, a really large ball of ice could be a planet.

Of course, likewise, that means that a plant big enough to have it's own gravity well could be a planet too.

[Jbird]

[Elfen_Furry]

Try figuiring out a trinary star system with 48 known planets and one of the stars is a dead nuetron star, another a red super giant and the third a white dwarf, each orbiting each other and all upon itself.

[RedneckFur]

wow...that sounds difficult.....is there such a system?

[aryeon]

whell there will be no life on any of those planets, the radiation of the neutron star has destroyed any atempt.