Posted on 03/19/2017 3:37:35 PM PDT by JimSEA
Solar system could have over 100 planets with new criteria Posted on March 19, 2017 by Kathy Fey Solar System A new classification system for what may be considered a planet would result in over 100 planets occupying our solar system. 178 SHARES ShareTweetGoogleReddit
Our solar system could contain over 100 planets if a new classification system is approved.
Tech Times explains that the definition of a planet was last changed by the International Astronomical Union (IAU) in 2006 when the new criteria famously demoted Pluto from the rank of a planet to dwarf planet and Kuiper Belt Object. Space objects similar in size or larger than Pluto were discovered in Pluto’s neighborhood, and the discovery of Eris, which is larger than Pluto, contributed to the new definition of a dwarf planet.
The IAU criteria for a planet reads, “a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighborhood around its orbit.”
Now, a group of scientists is proposing that the definition of a planet be changed to consider the object’s shape and behavior without considering the object’s location or other bodies that may share its orbit. The team points out that even Jupiter has not totally cleared its orbit of asteroids.
The group is suggesting a definition by which a planet is “a sub-stellar mass body that has never undergone nuclear fusion.” The object should possess enough gravitational pull to maintain a spherical shape, but any other space objects present in the planet’s surroundings are of no consequence in affecting the planet’s designation as such.
The newly proposed definition would reclassify objects such as Jupiter’s moon Europa and even Earth’s moon as planets. Pluto would be reinstated as a planet as well.
If the new definition were to be accepted, the solar system’s planet count would jump from eight to around 110.
nevertheless, it is exactly the same solar system
I know people who have evolved/pulled themselves to nearly spheroid shape! Do they count?
Moon, the planet....
Call a dog’s tail a leg...
It’s clear from the article that they are admitting they screwed the pooch back in 2006. They use Jupiter as an example, not Pluto.
A classification system might change people’s perception of reality but, as you say, it doesn’t affect reality.
My how unstable settled science is.
We cant determine how many planets are in the solar system by a factor of 10, but we know for certain that the planet will be a half a degree warmer each year for the next hundred years. (Not counting the last ten years)
Perhaps we should invent some method to measure the mean temperature of the entire planet some day. Something no one has ever been able to do.
They could go back to the ancient meaning of planet as a bright object that wanders in the sky (compared to the "fixed" stars). Of course the ancients had 7 planets but we would have to leave out the sun and the moon, so there would be 5 (Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn). "Bright objects which reflect light from the sun and move in a regular fashion compared to the stars." Maybe there would be a way to work the earth into the definition.
The rest--Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, the asteroids, the Kuiper Belt objects, the comets, could be "solar satellites." Smaller objects orbiting a planet or a solar satellite could be called a "planetary parasite" or a "solar satellite parasite."
Make sure they’re amusing, like Uranus. No one ever forgets the name of that planet.
Does a star have to clear the area around it?
If debris moves into the path of a planet, does the planet cease to be a planet, since it’s no longer cleared the area around it?
Does a star have to clear the area around it?
If debris moves into the path of a planet, does the planet cease to be a planet, since it’s no longer cleared the area around it?
>>The rest—Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, the asteroids, the Kuiper Belt objects, the comets, could be “solar satellites.” Smaller objects orbiting a planet or a solar satellite could be called a “planetary parasite” or a “solar satellite parasite.”<<
Yes, it does look like we need a new planet taxonomy. But we have to do it so the lesser planets don’t shriek for their safe spaces.
This whole Planet definition thing sounds like a buncha Grant Proposals ganging up on the government for funding of nonsense.
I think only solids should count....no gaseous windbags.
“JULIET:
‘Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What’s Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What’s in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call’d,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name,
And for that name which is no part of thee
Take all myself.”
A classification system doesn’t change the scientific observation, just what we call it.
The IAU isn’t making any money. They are the experts, you are not. If Pluto can be a planet, so should every speck of dust in the solar system by that logic.
Uranus Corporation:
At Uranus, things come out a little differently.
They made the right decision to anyone who actually knows something of astronomy.
...
And that’s why they screwed the pooch. The 2006 redefinition was done in the middle of the night by astronomers, not planetary scientists.
If Uranus self identifies as an asteroid who are we to argue. Just more liberal BS.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.