Jump to content
N-Europe

12 Planets: New definition proposed


Cube

Recommended Posts

Guest Ford Prefect
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 :heh:

 

Was your childhood in the 1920s? :p

 

(Pluto is the ninth planet discovered in 1930)

 

 

 

pluto = not a planet by the standards in place now. and this crap about extra planets isn't yet set in stone. going under the vote.

 

like mokong says, i'll stick with the 8 planets i was taught ta very much.

 

 

on a side note, if you do count pluto as the 9th planet, it isn't always the 9th due to neptune's elliptical orbit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. I can't understand why they would commit to these scientific endeavours when they could be posting on the internet.

 

 

That's not what I said at all. I was just saying that they shouldn't say "know" when most likely they will find new evidence and say that now they "know that it is this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

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.

 

i understand ur points, and i'm sure the scientists think they know but surely how a system is formed is theory. i doubt we actually know an awful lot about up there, and that much of it is based on theories on top of theories, after all we're not up there yet... really. so for me all the arguing going on within the scientific community is mute to me, as i'm a strong believer that we know squat about what's in (and life in) space.

 

I want a pink planet in our solar system. Maybe we should spray paint mars?

 

i think i know some "people" who don't seem to like that idea very much...

 

383838107a1733984903b263360506l.jpg

 

;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously, why is this debate even going on? The simplest option would be to just drop pluto as a planet. Whats wrong with:

 

4 Inner planets (mercury, venus, earth, mars)

Asteroid belt (inclueding ceres)

4 outer planets (saturn, juipiter, unranus, neptune)

Kupiter belt objects (including pluto and xena)

 

Ceres has been known about for ages, and yes it is just a very large asteroid. It has more of a claim to being a planet than pluto (at leas there used to be a planet where the asteroid belt was).

 

And the idea of making Channon a planets is just idiotic, if it wasnt orbiing pluto it would be completely ignored. Its just a rocky ball of ice. There making too big a fuss of the fact pluto and channon orbit each other.

 

Whats wrong with just dropping pluto?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Ford Prefect

technically there wasn;'t a planet where the asteroid belt is, that material wasn't allowed to form into a planet thanks to the distruptive effects of jupiters gravity....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Pluto moon thing is a difficult one...they orbit each other and the Sun...they are both moons & planets ;)...there u go... meaning that there are still the same amount as before of moons & planets if the other 2 'new' ones arent counted as Pluto = 1/2planet 1/2 moon, and it's lil bum buddy is the same:heh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why give it such a dumb name? Call it planet zog ffs.

Seriously, 2003 UB40? just name it properly, not some astronomy garbage

 

 

2003 UB_313 is just a standard name given to rocks found (with different numbers), until the have a proper name. I believe that "Persephone" was/is the most likely candidate for the name. ("Xena" is just a nickname from the discoverer)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think Pluto should be considered a planet. If they accept Pluto as a planet, won't they also have to accept all the other pluto-like objects in the Kuiper Belt, and that could increase the number of accepted planets in our solar system by a fairly large amount.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...