PLANETS

ITT Space News.

Did you know that the IAU is moving to change the definition of a planet and the IAU has proposed adding the following astral bodies to the list of Planets increasing its number from 9 to 12.

the following celestial objects that are to be named planets are
-Ceres. (the former asteroid/Former former planet)
-Charon (plutos moon will now be known as its twin planet...( this is due to the center of gravity for both planets is in the space between them... where as on earth+moon the center of gravity is in the earth...)
-Xena (that bitch is cold... and also now a planet)

Why can't they just define it as something that orbits a star and has no other objects orbiting the star in its immeadiate vicinity?

>>2
I think they are trying to define it as something that orbits a star and is approximately a sphere.

has no other objects orbiting the star in its immeadiate vicinity?
What about two planets that are orbiting each other, like Pluto and Charon?

-It must be round
-larger than 800km (circumference? diameter? radius?.. I'm not to sure... it didnt specify)
-orbits the sun
-mass of 1-12 000th of earths mass

this is what they decided on...

this is what i would have added on to the first four....

Personally I always thought that a planet should be called a planet if it had the capability (under perfect conditions (i.e. mercury would count because it would sustain an atmosphere if given the chance and not next to the sun) to sustain an atmosphere (pretty much most of the guidelines already proposed...)

>>4
Yeah, but then they would probably have arguments about the definition of "atmosphere" and "perfect conditions".

No actual scientific definition of a planet then?

>>3
They would not be considered planets in >>2's definition, because they don't directly orbit the sun; they orbit eachother, and the combination of both orbits the sun. This is different than the earth-moon system for example, because in this case the center of gravity is well within the earth, so the earth cannot be said to orbit the moon.

The problem with >>2's definition is that "immediate vicinity" doesn't make any sense; for bodies to stay in vicinity, they need to orbit eachother (like earth-moon or pluto-charon), because bodies in different orbits move around eachother all the time. Any old asteroid in either belt could be considered a planet this way.

If you can better define what you mean by "immediate vicinity", I'd like this definition better, because in the new IAU definition, upwards of 20 stellar bodies could be considered planets. They'll likely end up introducing subsets like "major planets" and "minor planets", and the whole thing ends up far more confusing than it should be.

so the ancients where right 12 planets?

>>8
They were right for the wrong reasons.

Oh goodie. :D

>>9
What were their reasons?

>>7
I don't think using "immediate vicinity" would be a good idea.  As soon as they use a vague term like that in their definition, then they are going to argue over that instead.

SO CERES was a planet and the explosion was caused the doom of mars and therefore the migrations of martians to earth and thats explain the destruction of the habitants of the earth the homo-Neandertal 30,000 years ago ;O
wait thats PSO story

GEORGE ZIMMER'S DICK IS A PLANET. I GUARANTEE IT.

The asteroid belt was a planet that didn't make it billions of years ago. It is a small planet like Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars so it could face complete obliteration and it was the furthest out, decreasing the amount of material it could collect and increasing the likely-hood of a collision with other forming bodies.

GEORGE ZIMMER'S BALLS ARE JUPITER AND SATURN AND HIS PENIS IS THE ASTEROID BELT

Fuck this thread, Thread's Closed

>>17
Don't even fucking think about it

>>14
more please

you know there was a time when the number of planets was less than 9.

>>18
And there was a time where the Earth was flat, had the Sun go round it, and sat on a line of tutles all the way down.

>>19

What are you talking about?  It still does.

>>11
I don't think using "immediate vicinity" would be a good idea.  As soon as they use a vague term like that in their definition, then they are going to argue over that instead.
That was the whole point of my post, dumbass.

>>21
If you can better define what you mean by "immediate vicinity", I'd like this definition better
If you can better define what you mean by "immediate vicinity", I'd like this definition better
If you can better define what you mean by "immediate vicinity", I'd like this definition better
If you can better define what you mean by "immediate vicinity", I'd like this definition better