Astronomy - 10th Planet found!

[oshmelvin]

A "planetoid" has been found a distance away from pluto. It is smaller than pluto in diameter and is a very very cold planet. It's also a red planet although it ranks second after mars. If i'm not mistaken it's named Sedona after the god that created the artic ocean. There is an icy belt between Pluto and Sedona and Sedona is one of the furthest object in our solar system.

[oshmelvin]

A "planetoid" has been found a distance away from pluto. It is smaller than pluto in diameter and is a very very cold planet. It's also a red planet although it ranks second after mars. If i'm not mistaken it's named Sedona after the god that created the artic ocean. There is an icy belt between Pluto and Sedona and Sedona is one of the furthest object in our solar system.

[USSDefiantNX74205]

Certainly blurs the line over what can be considered a planet or not, doesn't it? Just what is a planet? Does it have to conform to a certain size before it is declared a planet? Or are all big bodies orbiting the sun (and I don't mean asteroids - those are just kilometers wide) considered planets?

[USSDefiantNX74205]

Certainly blurs the line over what can be considered a planet or not, doesn't it? Just what is a planet? Does it have to conform to a certain size before it is declared a planet? Or are all big bodies orbiting the sun (and I don't mean asteroids - those are just kilometers wide) considered planets?

[oshmelvin]

I think there is a certain size that a body of rock must be to be classified as a planet. Planets and asteriods are almost similar because asteriods are the fragments left from planet collision in the past (it is believed that our solar system had more planets than today). A comet is different because one of the main composition is ice (which gives it a nice tail) when it is blown by the solar wind. :D

[oshmelvin]

I think there is a certain size that a body of rock must be to be classified as a planet. Planets and asteriods are almost similar because asteriods are the fragments left from planet collision in the past (it is believed that our solar system had more planets than today). A comet is different because one of the main composition is ice (which gives it a nice tail) when it is blown by the solar wind. :D

[Vigilante]

From James Randi, with his usual sarcasms.

Can you believe it? Oh, sure you can! The astrologers have joyously jumped on the finding of the "new" planet/planetoid/lump now named Sedna after an Eskimo goddess, probably mythical. (The goddess, not the lump.) This has them rhapsodical over the additional variables they now have to try explaining away the abysmal failings of their "science," and they've assigned the quality of "passion" to this object, just as they connect Mars with war, and Venus with love. One exuberant site says:


The November 14, 2003, discovery of Sedna marks an acceleration in our knowledge of the outer planet makup [sic] of the solar system....

For astrologers this signifies yet another distant transpersonal planet to join with Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, Quaoar, and 2004DW. Our whole way of looking astrology [sic] is undergoing a fundamental shift, and will reshape the way we think about ourselves, our spiritual evolution, and our place in The Universe.

The astrological interpretation of Sedna has a clear starting spot, being a victim and victimization, but it's [sic] goes far deeper than that. The ephemeris below will allow you locate [sic] Sedna in your natal chart. Contemplate that natal position especially by house position and aspecting to your other natal planets. Think about the times you have been a victim or times you have been victimized. Be prepared to have some eye-opening insights into yourself.


What's much more interesting to me, is that the astrologers can now be expected to examine every one of the billions of chunks of ice and rock that are wandering about in the Oort Cloud and the Kuiper Belt (look 'em up on Google!) so that the failure of astrology can be explained by complexity alone. But this might keep them busy enough that they won't be nuisances. It's sorta like trimming a hangnail?.

[Europa]

Hie everyone, just to contribute some additional info to the planet status classification.

As far as I know, the IAU arbitrarily assigns the planet status according to their choosing, since there are no clearly defined set of criterions for a celestial object to be classified as a planet. If you have noticed in your search for a conclusive answer, the IAU and many other sources on astronomy do not have an official definition of the term 'planet'. This is largely because the general population instinctively knows what is meant when you use the term planet.

Consequently, as the IAU tries to define what constitutes a planet, the major thorny issue they have to sort through this is the problem of Pluto. Most mainstream astronomers today agrees that it shouldn't be called a planet in the first place, but the public has grown attached to Pluto as the ninth planet in the first place! It is generally accepted among the astronomical community today that Pluto is in fact a Trans-Neptunian Object orbiting the Sun alongside thousands of other asteroids in the Kupier Belt.

Now, the key points in defining a planet is as follows: it's mass, possession of celestial bodies and its type of orbit. All these are being currently hotly debated in the quest to settle this problem for once and for all.

It is argued that a planet must be of sufficient mass so that the object has sufficient gravity to have a spherical shape, which will distinguish them from asteroids. The problem is on deciding the bottom limit of the object to be classified as a planet and its upper limit to distinguish it from brown dwarfs. This would be to Pluto?s advantage, since it does have sufficient mass to hold itself together, even though some moons in the Solar System are larger than itself! As for the upper limit, it must also not be too massive or else it will be taken into consideration as a brown dwarf. But thankfully these burn deuterium, or else Jupiter?s status is also threatened.

Another one is that it must possess a moon, but this is debatable as Pluto has Charon, but the innermost 2 planets have none! Furthermore, some asteroids also have its own companion, which added to the problem of using this as a criterion.

Pluto and Sedna both have the most erractic orbits among all the planets in the Solar System. So astronomers argue that both of them should not be classified as planets since their orbits are not as regular as the other planets. Furthermore Sedna could possibly be part of the Oort Cloud as it is currently 86 AU from the Sun, compared to Pluto's average distance of 39.5 AU! Pluto?s orbit is also inclined with respect to the Solar System?s plane, which is one of the reasons some say it shouldn?t be called a planet.

So, with all this problems, the issue is not likely to be settled quickly, and the discovery of these additional objects is definitely going to complicate matters. For now, Sedna would still be called a planetoid and Pluto-which is roughly twice its size-a planet.

[jiingjiunn]

recent news from prague....
they stripped pluto of its status, and class it as a dwarf planet along with charon and xena.
so there's only 8 planets left....

[iQing]

recent news from prague....
they stripped pluto of its status, and class it as a dwarf planet along with charon and xena.
so there's only 8 planets left....


ceres is also classed as dwarf planet now.