File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
>> Anonymous
about fucking time they got a proper defenition for "planet"
>> Anonymous
age for relevance
>> Anonymous
WTF? This is actually...what's that word? Edumacationable. Get this out of here
>> Anonymous
somewhat fail and outdated, there's 2 new planets being official named like next week
>> Anonymous
>>75287
What planets?
>> Anonymous
>>75287
i retract my statement, sorry, lol, that is the correct version
>> Anonymous
>>75296
to add

Charon
Long termed a moon of Pluto, Charon is the largest moon in the solar system relative to the object it orbits with. The orbital center of this two-object system is actually in the space between them, so the new definition would term this a double-planet system.

2003 UB313
This object, popularly called Xena, will eventually get some other formal name. Under the new definition, it would become the most distant planet in our solar system. The object is about 1,490 miles wide with an uncertainty of 60 miles, meaning its roughly the same size as Pluto. Click to enlarge.
>> Anonymous
>>75296
>somewhat fail and outdated, there's 2 new planets being official named like next week
>i retract my statement, sorry, lol, that is the correct version

Lol dumbfuck
>> Atheist Jew
Pluto ain't a fuckin' planet
>> Anonymous
it's missing Xena, warrior planet.
>> Anonymous
>>75316
Uh, 2003 UB 313 IS "Xena", fool. And Xena is just a nickname until they pick a real one. I've head the "Persephone" is currently the front-runner.

Anyways, this is just a PROPOSED definition, which will be voted on next week. The definition of a planet will be (if it passes): an object that a) orbits a star, and is not a star itself, and b) is of sufficient mass to have formed itself into a sphere.

All the current planets except pluto will be considered "classical" planets, whereas Pluto, Charon, Ceres, and "Xena" will be called "plutons", in that the take over 200 years to orbit the sun, and are very small. There will be probably be a couple hundred plutons in our discovered in our solar system sooner or later.
>> Anonymous
anyone know what Senda is classified as then if it's not a planet under this new proposed definition of a planet?

audio clips btw: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/multimedia/audioclips/planets-20060815/
>> Anonymous
the defintion of a planet should be that "is able to form a round shape under it's own gravity, circle a star and not another stellar body, AND have enough mass to hold in it's own atmosphere. That last part would discredit ceres from being a planet (and possibly charon), which shouldn't be planets IMO.
>> Anonymous
>>75330

pluto and charon circle each other as well as the sun, so both of them would be eliminated by your definition?
>> Anonymous
>>75330
I don't think Mercury has an atmosphere, though(?)
>> Anonymous
>>75333
Mercury is much too small for its gravity to retain any significant atmosphere over long periods of time, but it does have a very tenuous atmosphere containing hydrogen, helium, oxygen, sodium, calcium and potassium. The atmosphere is not stable—atoms are continuously lost and replenished, from a variety of sources. The hydrogen and helium atoms probably come from the solar wind, diffusing into Mercury's magnetosphere before later escaping back into space. Radioactive decay of elements within Mercury's crust is another source of helium, as well as sodium and potassium. Water vapor is probably also present, water being brought to Mercury by comets impacting on its surface.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>75330
screw the atmosphere bit, it has very little use.

thread needs more Death Star
>> Anonymous
>>75329
sorry i meant sedna, not senda
>> Atheist Jew
>>75330

BAH! Pluto is not a planet and neither are any of those other huge orbs of dirt and ice hanging around in the Kuiper belt. NONE of em are planets.

A redefinition of the term would be idiotic. Planets have stable, circular Orbits, they are composed of rock, and have an atmosphere that's composed of more than just the vaporized gaseous residue of their composite materials.

Pluto has this CRAZY-ass ellipitcal orbit that takes it well above and below the plane of the Solar System, it's composed of ice of and dirt, and it's atmosphere is mostly nitrogen, methane, and carbon monoxide, the majority of which freezes solid when Pluto gets far enough out from the Sun.

If anything Pluto and Xena are more along lines of large cometary bodies than planets.
>> Anonymous
Plutons? Kuiper Belt? Rational arguments containing facts?

Where the fuck do you people think you're posting? This is 4chan. ORLY! STFU! GTFO! NO U! DESU DESU DESU!
>> Atheist Jew
sorry I forgot
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Do you guys have crazy space pictures like this one? Or a website?

I think it is a NASA's picture.
>> Anonymous
the public should go screw itself, and come to terms that there are 8 planets. I don't care if the "public" doesn't like it,
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
There will most likely be more planets announced by the IAU in the future. Currently a dozen "candidate planets" are listed on IAU's "watchlist" which keeps changing as new objects are found and the physics of the existing candidates becomes better known. A number of these planet candidates are shown here.


http://www.iau2006.org/mirror/www.iau.org/iau0601/iau0601c.html
>> Anonymous
>>75350
YOU MY FRIEND ARE FUCKEN STUPID...

>>Planets have stable, circular Orbits, they are composed of rock, and have an atmosphere that's composed of more than just the vaporized gaseous residue of their composite materials.
-well, looks like outer planets; jupiter, saturn, neptune, uranus are not planets as they are basically balls of gas
>>composed of rock
... vocabulary much?
-o, fun fact for you guys saturn's density is so low that if you 'place' it in a volume of water that could contain it, the planet would float (saturn is less dense than water fyi if i worded weird)

>>Pluto has this CRAZY-ass ellipitcal orbit that takes it well above and below the plane of the Solar System
i dont remember which planet exactly (neptune?) but it has an orbit above and below the plane
o, ALL planets around the sun have an elliptcal orbit, it veries how elliptic it is
conclusion, gb2/school/
>> Anonymous
Q: What is the exact wording of the official IAU proposed definition of "planet" in "Resolution 5 for GA-XXVI"?

A: "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."

Q: Based on this new definition, how many planets are there in our Solar System?

A: There are currently 12. Eight are the classical planets Mercury through Neptune. Three are in a newly defined (and growing in number) category called “plutons”, for which Pluto is the prototype. One is Ceres, which may be described as a dwarf planet.

http://www.iau2006.org/mirror/www.iau.org/iau0601/iau0601_Q_A.html
>> Orin
This thread delivers. I didn't even know one fourth of the shit you guys talked about untill i read it here. (about them re-doing the def of a planet, etc) I love astrology.

Win.
>> Orin
oh, and Pluto isn't a planet.


Hes a dog. (hurrrrrrrrr)
>> Anonymous
The idea of a planet being smaller than a moon (any moon of the solar system) seems weird to me. I mean before it was only Pluto, but now there'll be loads.

I don't think these "plutons" should be classed as planets. That way we just need to forget Pluto rather than remember a whole bunch of new ones, haha.
>> Anonymous
They want to drop 'planets' like Pluto, etc, since they are already reclassified as other non-planet objects.
>> Anonymous
The IAU is considering a proposal that will reclassify Ceres, Charon and 2003 UB313 (unofficially known as "Xena") as planets bringing the total in our solar system to twelve (and messing up the name of this website :-) A final decision is expected on August 24.

from nineplanets.org
>> Anonymous
http://www.iau2006.org/mirror/www.iau.org/iau0601/iau0601_release.html
>> Anonymous
>>75404
All of these pics are here.
>> Anonymous
>>75379
*astronomy
>> Anonymous
>>75234

The idiots forgot to label the thing on the left, how'm I supposed to figire it ouT!?!
>> Anonymous
Im betting this has something to do with that firefly show. Most of these rocks where found a long time ago, so many where found that they just gave up on calling them planets and foccused on the "big" ones. Still, it's nice to have solid defination of a planet and more places to put colonies that are not too far away.
>> Anonymous
>>75430
2003 UB313 was only discovered a few years ago, as well as Sedna.

Also, there were no known planets outside our solar system 11 years ago, but today there are 193 known planets outside our solar system and 97 solar systems (and always increasing in # every few months or so).

http://planetquest1.jpl.nasa.gov/atlas/atlas_index.cfm

Many of these new planets outside our solarsystem are larger than jupiter, but smaller than the sun, and astronomers are having troubles weither to call them "stars" or "planets", also addingto the IAU debate.

I reccommend Celestia to anyone who is interested in astronomy. Real time Universe in 3D yo! http://www.shatters.net/celestia/
>> Anonymous
>>75430
1) it has nothing to do with any tv show
2) most of these "rocks" were not known long ago
3) these "rocks" are not "not too far away", and are not suitable for colonies in the forseeable future
>> Anonymous
>>75536

> and are not suitable for colonies in the forseeable future

We're never getting off this mudball regardless. THERE WILL NEVER BE ANY SPACE COLONIES. Ever. Even close ones like on the moon. And it's not a matter of mass or distance, but rather of economics and politics.

Overcoming the sucking force of gravity is easy. We solved that decades ago; it's just a matter of how big or how many rockets you need to build.

Overcoming the sucking force of millions of voting welfare leeches pulling funding away from space development and into their own worthless and useless bellies? That's a different matter entirely.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>75541
your soul is trapped by gravity.
>> Ryuto !tKhnmw/ASg
wheres the moon?
>> Anonymous
Heres my theory, when we look at atoms and shit, we are actually looking at planets and thier electrons are moons, you know its possible. planets of all kinds out there just like different elements. the universe is infinatly big/small.
>> Anonymous
>>75396

A natural satellite (moon) is anything that orbits another body. So if earth were orbiting Jupiter for whatever reason, it would be a MOON.

The word "moon" has almost nothing to do with size.

The problem with a lot of definitions that I see proposed here is that they are too solar-centric. We aren't the only star system with planets. So when we try using our definitions for celestial bodies and apply them to other systems we run into problems.

Basically it's good to have definitions that classify celestial bodies in a stable fashion (i.e. if a planet loses 1kg of mass it doesn't get reclassified)

Ones that classify objects into groups without much arbitrary reasoning. For example, if someone says we should just end planets at pluto because remembering more is too hard.
Probably more stuff...but I forgot.
>> Anonymous
>>75320

Ceres is a pluton? It's currently classified as the largest asteroid in the main belt.

>>75330
The atmosphere definition is difficult. How much of an atmosphere? Composed of what? Periodically replenished from planetary outgassing? What about proximity to the sun? It's easier to hold one when it's not venting away into space from the heat.

>>75350

There IS no definition of a planet, so that being said-it would be hard to redefine it.
>> Anonymous
>>75563
Request more pictures of colony drops. Thanks.
>> Anonymous
Anyone has the comparison serie between planete from Earth to Antares? I've seen it some time ago...
>> Anonymous
>>75330
This is kind of a tenuous definition, given that Pluto has no atmosphere, but Titan (a moon of Saturn) does. And we also have to define star, given that Jupiter is very, very close to a star itself -- if Titan broke off from Saturn and started circling Jupiter, it could be classified as a planet.
>> Anonymous
>>75350
Actually, none of the 9 standard planets have circular orbits; Mercury's orbit wobbles by something like 1.32 arc-seconds each year; Mercury has no atmosphere; and Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune aren't composed of rock, but of gas. (The Earth is 70% water, for that matter.)
>> Anonymous
>>75664
uh...70% of the surface is covered in water. not the same thing.
>> Anonymous
How are the Christains reacting to this? They don't believe in science and change scares them.
>> Anonymous
>>75716
Woops I made a typo. Don't hold that against me.
>> Anonymous
>>75716
Christians only dislike science that contradicts the Bible. I don't think there's anything in there about the number of planets.
>> Anonymous
>>75716

I'm a christian, and my view is this:

"Great, we have uncovered more of our lord God's beautiful creation."

Why are you so sterotypist?
>> Anonymous
>>75745
I'm a horrible, horrible person.
>> Anonymous
hey guys, did you know that and asteroid in space is a meteor when it's burning up in the atmosphere and a meteorite when it has entered the atmosphere?
no?
awesome!
>> Anonymous
>>75736
Did you guys know that the bible states the Sun revolves around the Earth?
>> Anonymous
>>75762
And that only 144000 people will make it into heaven?
>> Anonymous
and that a dirty magic arab named jesus came back to life
>> Anonymous
... sigh.
>> Anonymous
>>75762
>>75765
so, it states somewhere in the bible that you can sell your daughter to prostitution and a whole slew of other stuff
as a christian, i don't even know how to 'interprete' these kinds of stuff

going back on topic>>75366, there's this crazy oval 'planet', pretty cool (2003EL61)
>> Anonymous
we have the best looking planet by far. we win.
>> Anonymous
>>75788

Are you kidding? Saturn is by far the best looking. Seriously. All those rings!

It also has the largest moon (Titan - which is larger than all these new "planets). It even has a small moon that looks like the Death Star.
>> Anonymous
>>75841

"That's no moon. It's a Space Station!"
>> Anonymous
>>75841
Neptune. Better coloring.
>> Anonymous
>>75366

I think that we should collect all those little things out there, and add them to our collection so that we can overtake Jupiter
>> Anonymous
The deathstar is byfar the best it is a fucking laser gun
>> Anonymous
>>75841
Io