Cube Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 http://news.com.com/Pluto+dodges+a+bullet/2100-11397_3-6106280.html Latest verdict has come on the number of planets. That number is 12 or more "New" Planets are Ceres (located in the asteroid belt), Charon (Pluto's "moon", which will make it a 2-planet system), and 2003 UB_313. However, Pluto, Charon and UB_313 may be sub-classed into "Plutons" (So, Inner Planets, Outer Planets and Plutons???) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demuwan Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 Heard about it on the news this morning and other than making the lives of physics teachers more complicated. I couldn't care less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcj metroid Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 wow more planets!i guess this is more important than it seems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tellyn Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 Most of these 'new' planets were discovered ages ago, and it's only a label for them, not a new discovery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shino Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 They need to define planet, or every rock they'll find will be a planet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KKOB Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 i really cant be bothered to keep up with this whole anit pluto, pluto isnt a planet/yes it is thing. they've been bashing it out for the past 10 years or so. let them argue. in my mind it'd make sense if there was either 8 planets and then more planetoid type objects like pluto OR they anounce pluto and that other planet like object as a 2 planet system and leave it as it is. its relatively pointless to classify planets as it doesnt mean a lot unlike the classification of living things. maybe we need a star treck style classification system :S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cube Posted August 16, 2006 Author Share Posted August 16, 2006 they've been bashing it out for the past 10 years or so. let them argue. in my mind it'd make sense if there was either 8 planets and then more planetoid type objects like pluto OR they anounce pluto and that other planet like object as a 2 planet system and leave it as it is. The whole debate they are having at the moment is (apparantly) THE final verdict, and this is what they have come up with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KKOB Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 wake me up when the votings over, scientists annoy me sometimes. some of them either argue over the most pointless of things or make obvious observations. this from a guy who wants to be a scientist in the future lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 I didnt know Pluto had three satellites called Charon, Nix and Hydra. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightendo Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 shows how much i know! didn't even know pluto wasn't a planet anymore lol! we're so insignificant when u compare r wee planet to the vastness of space, seems silly these scientists are arguing over what they'll call them. haven't they got better things to do, and just leave it the way it was...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoogleViper Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 Hey everybody I've just shitted out a planet. And boy it was a big one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokong Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 The problem with science is they think they know everything then something new comes along that completly changes things. Remember long ago "science" said the Earth was flat, and was the center of the universe. When the "Big Bang theory" was made a lot of scientists said it was utter nonsense. When it was discovered that every galaxy has a supermassive blackhole at the centre science was surprised cuz they thought it wasn't possible. Fact is we know alot but not everthing, there's always gonna be something that changes something. But as for these "new" planets, i'm fed up with all now, like this "Ceres" one, between Mars and Jupiter, how come it wasn't "found" long ago? Its prolly just a large asteriod, i mean it is in the asteriod belt frack sake. I'm just gonna stick with the 8 planets i knew of as a kid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haver Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 shows how much i know! didn't even know pluto wasn't a planet anymore lol! we're so insignificant when u compare r wee planet to the vastness of space, seems silly these scientists are arguing over what they'll call them. haven't they got better things to do, and just leave it the way it was...? It's Astronomy Gone Mad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoogleViper Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 I hate it when scientists say that they "know" something. They know fuck all. Nothing is known. Why don't they just say that it is most likely that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackfox Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 I'm just gonna stick with the 8 planets i knew of as a kid Was your childhood in the 1920s? :p (Pluto is the ninth planet discovered in 1930) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supergrunch Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 I don't how this changes anything... all they are doing is changing the definition of planet, so some things that weren't previously planets (such as Ceres) now are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haver Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 I hate it when scientists say that they "know" something. They know fuck all. Nothing is known. Why don't they just say that it is most likely that? Exactly. I can't understand why they would commit to these scientific endeavours when they could be posting on the internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supergrunch Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 As for the whole "scientists don't know" etc. thing... Everthing in science is a model, an approximation of the actual truth, even in subjects like biology. Over time, these models get more refined. And there are many disputes in science, as not everyone holds the same view... the more advanced science gets, te more it becomes a matter of opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightendo Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 The problem with science is they think they know everything then something new comes along that completly changes things. Remember long ago "science" said the Earth was flat, and was the center of the universe. When the "Big Bang theory" was made a lot of scientists said it was utter nonsense. When it was discovered that every galaxy has a supermassive blackhole at the centre science was surprised cuz they thought it wasn't possible. Fact is we know alot but not everthing, there's always gonna be something that changes something. i am reminded of two quotes: "A wise man once said, that a person trying to know something about everything, will eventually know everything about nothing. And that a person trying to know everything about one thing, will eventually know nothing about everything." Harrison Blackwood (War Of The Worlds tv series) and: (roughly) "...didn't all you scientist types once think the world was flat... and didn't you also believe that the atom was the smallest thing, yeh, until you broke that open and a whole buncha crap came out." Pheobe (Friends) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaggle64 Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 This is potentially vital to the future of astronomics, as how we define a planet could greatly affect our understanding and perception of how they are formed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supergrunch Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 This is potentially vital to the future of astronomics, as how we define a planet could greatly affect our understanding and perception of how they are formed. How? Just because you call rocks of a different size (or whatever) a planet doesn't change the way they're formed. Of course, there must be a definition of what a planet is, and it's fine if it gets changed, I just don't see how it affects anything. I'm not saying astronomy isn't interesting or important, I'm just saying that this change in classification changes nothing but classification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaggle64 Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 I'm not saying astronomy isn't interesting or important, I'm just saying that this change in classification changes nothing but classification. It's the classification that's the rub you see. It's a sort of form of politics within scientific thought. Take the Pluto argument. One of the arguments against it was that it had an eliptical orbit and was possibly not a body formed from the material of our star, therefore not a planet, but some kind of massive asteroid. Now we seem to be heading towards classing much smaller rogue objects that are spherical, like some of the larger asteroids. This would tend to suggest a bit of a shift of opinion towards accepting smaller and potentially outside bodies as part of a plantery system. It's this shift which could form the basis to potential new theories about how material is formed, distributed and collected by the sun during the birth of a system, how gravity affects spacial bodies, origin and other factors which govern the creation of planetoids and other objects. Expect to see some exsisting theories declared destorted or even broken later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supergrunch Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 I can see that this change might make it more vogue to investigate smaller bodies, and this will draw more research into this area, but some scientists are going to research whatever the hell they like anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conzer16 Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 The Beeb sum it up very well. It seems we have to re-learn that mnemonic! My Very Elegant Mother Just Sat Upon Nine Porcupines Add Charon and UB313! lol! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 The tenth planet blatantly isn't 2003 UB313, it's Mondas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts