TWELVE PLANETS???, wow. Options

[think!IMAGINARIL...]

The number of planets around the Sun could rise from nine to 12 - with more on the way - if experts approve a radical new vision of our Solar System.

An endorsement by astronomers meeting in Prague would require school and university textbooks to be rewritten.

The proposal recognises eight classical planets, three planets belonging to a new category called "plutons" and the largest asteroid Ceres.

Pluto remains a planet, but becomes the basis for the new pluton category.


The plan has been drawn up by the International Astronomical Union (IAU) with the aim of settling the question of what does and does not count as a planet.

Some 2,500 astronomers gathered at the IAU General Assembly in Prague will vote on the plan next Thursday.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4795755.stm


So what do you guys think?

I, for one, think it's crazy. How are we going to memorize them?
"Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Ceres, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto and Charon, UB313??"
It doesn't sound right anymore!! And I've never even heard of Ceres before.. It's just gonna be really confusing with the planets and plutons.. And as the article said, it's not going to be that useful to astronomers.

[goodcharlotte]

Who would name a planet UB313?
I think that as science advances the general definitions for things such as plants start to loose its meaning and become more vague. I guess we are just going to have to deal with more planets.

[*mipadi*]

Who would name a planet UB313?
I think that as science advances the general definitions for things such as plants start to loose its meaning and become more vague. I guess we are just going to have to deal with more planets.

On the contrary, the definition of a planet is becoming more exact, which results in more celestial bodies being defined as planets.

A council of astronomers are set to release the exact definition of a planet in September. Pluto might get knocked off the list—as it should, because it hardly has the traditional properties of a planet.

[think!IMAGINARIL...]

On the contrary, the definition of a planet is becoming more exact, which results in more celestial bodies being defined as planets.

A council of astronomers are set to release the exact definition of a planet in September. Pluto might get knocked off the list—as it should, because it hardly has the traditional properties of a planet.

So what definition have they decided on?

For a celestial object to be considered a planet, it must satisfy two conditions:

The object must be in orbit around a star, but must not itself be a star
It must have enough mass for the body's own gravity to pull it into a nearly spherical shape
Any object with a mass greater than 0.6% that of our Moon and a diameter greater than 800km would normally meet the second condition. But borderline cases will have to be resolved by more observation.

Some objects currently considered to be moons and asteroids could be eligible if they meet those basic tests. So the definition leaves the door open for other objects to join the expanding club.

In one sense, Pluto has been demoted. This world has always been the odd one out; it has less than one four-hundredth the mass of Earth and has a tilted, elliptical orbit around the Sun.

The IAU's draft proposal recognises eight "classical" planets - Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune - three "plutons" - Pluto, Charon and UB313 - and the asteroid Ceres.

Many astronomers think Pluto is part of a vast population of icy objects that orbit the Sun beyond Neptune, in a region called the Kuiper Belt. These objects have a different origin from planets like Earth and Jupiter; they are thought to be leftover debris from the formation of the Solar System.

The new category of plutons distinguishes Pluto and other "icy dwarfs" from classical planets in that they reside in orbits around the Sun that take longer than 200 years to complete, circle the Sun with high "inclination" (are highly tilted with respect to the classical planets) and typically have orbits that are far from being perfectly circular.

But the plutons fit all the criteria of the new definition of a planet, so Pluto does not receive the full demotion some astronomers had hoped for.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4798205.stm

Yeah, Pluto's probably gonna get knocked off.