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 Plutos 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 objects shape and behavior without considering the objects 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 planets surroundings are of no consequence in affecting the planets designation as such.
The newly proposed definition would reclassify objects such as Jupiters moon Europa and even Earths moon as planets. Pluto would be reinstated as a planet as well.
If the new definition were to be accepted, the solar systems planet count would jump from eight to around 110.
Planetary science is subset of the branch of science known as astronomy, not a separate one. It includes planets as well as moons and other objects down to meteors. The term is from back when ‘planet’ was a more general term than today. Really there are few astronomers who engage in this silly argument about what a planet is—it’s mostly from those see it from an armchair perspective.
Maybe the definition of a planet can be made to include that it must rotate on its axis at less than a 90 degree inclination. Since Uranus' inclination is 98 degrees, that would exclude it from the category of planets.
What to call it then? Perhaps Quasi-Planet.
They are government paid retards arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. This is Fake Svience. They need to go do some real work.
Maybe Rosie O’Donnell will be a planet under the new system. ;-)
Yet it’s the armchair guys who have to point out how terrible a requirement it is that a planet has to clear its orbit.
How clean would your house be if you were to only get to clean each room every 248 years?
A ball of gas is NOT a planet. Science Fiction Literature agrees.
I find your post to be devoid of logic.
You do realize that the higher edumacation professorial set of “positions” is largely government academic/white collar welfare...,
The problem is the IAU 2006 requirement of clearing an orbit is extremely vague for scientific purposes. But I would expect nothing else from such a hasty and heavy handed effort.
What is the alternative logic then? As far as I can tell, the “dissenters” want the term ‘planet’ to mean every object they feel a sentimental connection to. The problem is that we don’t all feel the same way. Where is the science? Or should there be no definition for planet at all? Is it a ‘bad’ term? If you find my logic flawed, fist explain the correct solution.
Yes I’ll admit it’s somewhat vague and open to interpretation, sort of the way the difference between a mountain and a hill is. But it’s just a term we’re talking about, nothing else. At least it has some boundaries, and isn’t so vague that I can call my dog a planet if I want.
Review the derivation/history of the word Planet.
Whatever the government funded welfare professors want to describe needs a new moniker. Planet has too much baggage to try to coopt. Be creative and generate a new term. Otherwise they are wasting valuable resources and not advancing Science.
I know the history. The original word for ‘planet’ is a star that wanders, and does not include the Earth. But we also thought that the Earth was the center of the universe as well. But we’ve advanced somewhat since then, and so has the term for a planet. I don’t want to go back a thousand years.
Planet used to include The Moon and The Sun.
Time to saw off and create a new term to cover whatever it is that the govt funded navel gazers are using to get grants to fund their programs.
I’m suRprised that this issue Is not heavily linked to CAGW....
In the ancient Greek world, and the dark age one, there were five classes of objects in the universe. They were the Earth, the moon, the planets, the sun, and the stars. And there were five planets. Things like comets and meteors were pretty much temporary things appearing only as signs—basically the gods sending coded messages for any who could interpret them. “Planet” meant an entirely different thing then as now. It wasn’t until the 16h century that the idea of Earth being just another planet began to take hold.
I see the point being that govt funded perfessers are hell bent on redefining the term “Planet”. It seems like a lame operation to generate papers to use to milk the NSF, et. al. for funding instead of doing legitimate work.
Graduate students are not being well trained/well served by such unscientific actions.
And I see the point as only more clearly defining terms so that astronomy remains a true field of science instead of a pseudo-religion ruled by unpredictable individual sentiment and emotionalism.
So get your own, new term. Youse guys claim to be smart. Generate one and move on.
Otherwise you sre wasting society’s wealth.
You’ve yet to convince me how a change in science terminology is costing society their wealth, or how anyone is being victimized, driven from their homes, or forced into labor camps. Is there something I’m missing?
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.