IPB WARNING [2] Illegal string offset 'member_id' (Line: 619 of /modules/blog/lib/lib_blogfunctions.php)
IPB WARNING [2] Illegal string offset 'member_id' (Line: 619 of /modules/blog/lib/lib_blogfunctions.php)
IPB WARNING [2] Illegal string offset 'member_id' (Line: 619 of /modules/blog/lib/lib_blogfunctions.php)
IPB WARNING [2] Illegal string offset 'member_id' (Line: 619 of /modules/blog/lib/lib_blogfunctions.php)
IPB WARNING [2] Illegal string offset 'member_id' (Line: 619 of /modules/blog/lib/lib_blogfunctions.php)
IPB WARNING [2] Illegal string offset 'member_id' (Line: 619 of /modules/blog/lib/lib_blogfunctions.php)
IPB WARNING [2] Illegal string offset 'member_id' (Line: 619 of /modules/blog/lib/lib_blogfunctions.php)
IPB WARNING [2] Illegal string offset 'member_id' (Line: 619 of /modules/blog/lib/lib_blogfunctions.php)
IPB WARNING [2] Illegal string offset 'member_id' (Line: 619 of /modules/blog/lib/lib_blogfunctions.php)
IPB WARNING [2] Illegal string offset 'member_id' (Line: 619 of /modules/blog/lib/lib_blogfunctions.php)
IPB WARNING [2] Illegal string offset 'member_id' (Line: 619 of /modules/blog/lib/lib_blogfunctions.php)
IPB WARNING [2] Illegal string offset 'member_id' (Line: 619 of /modules/blog/lib/lib_blogfunctions.php)
IPB WARNING [2] Illegal string offset 'member_id' (Line: 619 of /modules/blog/lib/lib_blogfunctions.php)
IPB WARNING [2] Illegal string offset 'member_id' (Line: 619 of /modules/blog/lib/lib_blogfunctions.php)
IPB WARNING [2] Illegal string offset 'member_id' (Line: 619 of /modules/blog/lib/lib_blogfunctions.php)
IPB WARNING [2] Illegal string offset 'member_id' (Line: 619 of /modules/blog/lib/lib_blogfunctions.php)
IPB WARNING [2] Illegal string offset 'member_id' (Line: 619 of /modules/blog/lib/lib_blogfunctions.php)
IPB WARNING [2] Illegal string offset 'member_id' (Line: 619 of /modules/blog/lib/lib_blogfunctions.php)
IPB WARNING [2] Illegal string offset 'member_id' (Line: 619 of /modules/blog/lib/lib_blogfunctions.php)
IPB WARNING [2] Illegal string offset 'member_id' (Line: 619 of /modules/blog/lib/lib_blogfunctions.php)
Hamara Forums -> Solar System Gets Three More Planets

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 

 | Category: What enthralls me!
entry Aug 17 2006, 07:46 PM
PRAGUE: Our solar system would have 12 planets instead of nine under a proposed "Big Bang" expansion by leading astronomers, changing what billions of schoolchildren are taught about their corner of the cosmos.

Much-maligned Pluto would remain a planet and its largest moon plus two other heavenly bodies would join Earth's neighbourhood under a draft resolution formally presented on Wednesday to the International Astronomical Union, the arbiter of what is and is not a planet.

"Yes, Pluto is a planet," quipped Richard Binzel, a professor of planetary science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

The proposal could change, however: Binzel and the other nearly 2,500 astronomers from 75 nations meeting in Prague to hammer out a universal definition of a planet will hold two brainstorming sessions before they vote on the resolution next week.

But the draft comes from IAU's executive panel, which only submits recommendations likely to get two-thirds approval from the group.

Besides reaffirming the status of puny Pluto whose detractors insist it should not be a planet at all the new lineup would include 2003 UB313, the farthest-known object in the solar system; Pluto's largest moon, Charon; and the asteroid Ceres, which was a planet in 1800s before it was demoted.

The panel also proposed a new category of planets called "plutons", referring to Pluto-like objects that reside in the Kuiper Belt, a mysterious, disc-shaped zone beyond Neptune containing thousands of comets and planetary objects.

Pluto itself and two potential newcomers Charon and 2003 UB313 would be plutons.

The provisionally named 2003 UB313's discoverer, Michael Brown of the California Institute of Technology, nicknamed it Xena after the warrior princess of TV fame, but it likely would be rechristened something else later, the panel said.

Opponents of Pluto, which was named a planet in 1930, still might spoil for a fight

Astronomers also were being asked to get rid of the term "minor planets", which long has been used to collectively describe asteroids, comets and other non-planetary objects. Instead, those would become collectively known as "small solar system bodies".

The galactic shift would force publishers to update encyclopaedias and school textbooks, and elementary school teachers to rejig the planet mobiles hanging from classroom ceilings.

Far outside the realm of science, astrologers accustomed to making predictions based on the classic nine might have to tweak their formulae.

Even if the list of planets is officially lengthened when astronomers vote on August 24, it is not likely to stay that way for long: The IAU has a "watchlist" of at least a dozen other potential candidates that could become planets once more is known about their sizes and orbits.

« Next Oldest · Nimz panoramic outlooks! · Next Newest »
2 Pages V  1 2 >

Comments

Mandrake
post Aug 18 2006, 11:55 AM
Comment #1


Dedicated Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 3856
Joined: 11-April 05
From: Mumbai, India
Member No.: 2066



This is a never-ending debate.
Just two years back we heard of 'Sedna' being the 10th planet. It doesn't merit a mention in this list? Why?I also remember about a mysterious 'Poseidon' being the 10th planet way back in the late seventies/ early eighties. Never heard of it later.Charon and Pluto are twin bodies.
Even earlier, Pluto was always the step-child, being denied the status of a planet. Now, to make it eligible, Charon too becomes a planet?
Seems like a case similar to the arm-bending rule in cricket wink2.gif

Self - belief is the most potent force.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
Nimii
post Aug 18 2006, 12:05 PM
Comment #2


Dedicated Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 22493
Joined: 20-October 03
Member No.: 3



Yes that is what even I have been trying to understand. I read the article in the newspaper last morning and managed to get the soft copy to post here. n
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
Mandrake
post Aug 18 2006, 12:11 PM
Comment #3


Dedicated Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 3856
Joined: 11-April 05
From: Mumbai, India
Member No.: 2066



If one needs a 'correct' logic to decide on 'Solar System Planets', I'd go by something rather different.
Apart from the fact that they should be round bodies, etc, I'd also want to know whether they conform to the orbit-distance properties exhibited by the previous planets.
There's an uncanny mathematics there that beats randomness all ends up.
To me, that would be the added qualification required.

Self - belief is the most potent force.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
Mandrake
post Aug 18 2006, 12:52 PM
Comment #4


Dedicated Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 3856
Joined: 11-April 05
From: Mumbai, India
Member No.: 2066



As per Bode's 'Law', the next planet after Pluto should be at a distance equal to 154 times the distance between the earth and the sun.

Self - belief is the most potent force.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
Nimii
post Aug 18 2006, 01:34 PM
Comment #5


Dedicated Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 22493
Joined: 20-October 03
Member No.: 3



But Mandrake do they not have some standards to qualify any extra terrestrial object as a part of our solar system? And I also wonder if any circular mass comes closer to our solar system, it is bound to run along an orbit caused by its own movement and ofc the grav. forces.. etc.. It may have belonged to another solar system and has moved away .. probably a dying solar system.. like a runaway planet. Would that qualify then, coz it has joined our SS? I know my theory is far-fetching laugh.gif N doh.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
Mandrake
post Aug 18 2006, 02:07 PM
Comment #6


Dedicated Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 3856
Joined: 11-April 05
From: Mumbai, India
Member No.: 2066



Simplistically speaking, any planet that comes into the sun's gravitational field (??? is it there?) and orbits around the sun, must be classified as (now) belonging to the solar system.
But if it escaped the field of another star, how did that happen? If the star died, it would suck the planets in.If it didn't, did the runaway planet develop excess energy to break the threshold velocity needed to escape the system?
How?
Under the influence of another, more powerful object?
Then how did it drift away, and not gravitate towards THAT object?

(Just continuing on your theory smile1.gif )

Self - belief is the most potent force.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
Nimii
post Aug 18 2006, 03:57 PM
Comment #7


Dedicated Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 22493
Joined: 20-October 03
Member No.: 3



Sun should be having the gravitational field else kaise 9 graha be chakkaroing it? Well the theory of suckin up need not happen with all, some extremely far off planet ?? Would the pull from that dying star be that strong that the far away body will be pulled towards it? May be it has gained momentum to move towards another stronger grav pull from another S. system coz of the proximity of its path with the diff SS. Isnt it true that the galaxies themselves are in constant movement? Hmmm.. let me see if I can find some literature to read on these probabilities. If you can find any plz buzz me or send me by mail or post the links here biggrin.gif N
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
Mandrake
post Aug 18 2006, 04:14 PM
Comment #8


Dedicated Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 3856
Joined: 11-April 05
From: Mumbai, India
Member No.: 2066



Sun's gravitational pull????
You think THAT keeps the planets going around it?
Then how come, all the probes we send to different planets, drift OUT of the solar system in the end?
Why don't they drift into the sun - logically?
The simple answer is because the sun doesn't 'pull' anything.
Besides, the planets are travelling in a straight line...

Self - belief is the most potent force.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
Nimii
post Aug 20 2006, 11:01 AM
Comment #9


Dedicated Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 22493
Joined: 20-October 03
Member No.: 3



Agreed, I went thru my geography book again and also noted that the gravitational pull of a closer object is relatively more as compared to a body that is so far off.. as in the case of Moon's gravitational pull on earth (causing tides) than Sun's GPull. This is also the reason why Moon is rotating around us and not joined the route like that of any other planet. I just got a mail with this content.. thought should share it with you Mandrake - (no relevance to what we are discussing here) Planet Mars will be the brightest in the night sky starting August. It will look as large as the full moon to the naked eye. This will be ultimate on Aug. 27 when Mars comes within 34.65M miles of Earth. Be sure to watch the sky on Aug. 27 12:30 am . It will look like The Earth has 2 Moons. Don't Miss it. The next time Mars may come like this close only in 2287.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
Mandrake
post Aug 20 2006, 12:11 PM
Comment #10


Dedicated Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 3856
Joined: 11-April 05
From: Mumbai, India
Member No.: 2066



Nimii PLEASE!!!
Thats a BIGGGGGG hoax!!!
The orbit of Mars is far off as compared to the moon. They can NEVER look to be of the same size EVER.
Incidentally, mars was closest to Earth in 2003. Will not be again at that distance in our lifetime.

Tell all that this is a hoax - both time-wise and size-wise!!

Self - belief is the most potent force.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
Nimii
post Aug 20 2006, 12:13 PM
Comment #11


Dedicated Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 22493
Joined: 20-October 03
Member No.: 3



Thanks Mandrake! I am glad I clarified with you, else would have strained my neck out of the window to watch something that is nothing but hoax. N bow.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
Nimii
post Aug 20 2006, 12:20 PM
Comment #12


Dedicated Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 22493
Joined: 20-October 03
Member No.: 3



Mandrake - I am going thru these few links at the moment. If you have the time to spare plz do go thru smile.gif
http://www.theforumsite.com/forum.php?t=89020

http://space.com/

Will return with more queries thrown at u tongue1.gif So get ready oh Mandrake the Magician to answer them for me.

biggrin.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
Nimii
post Aug 20 2006, 12:32 PM
Comment #13


Dedicated Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 22493
Joined: 20-October 03
Member No.: 3



http://space.com/scienceastronomy/060817_moon_planet.html

Arghhh now they think moon could be another planet ohmy.gif and also there could already be 53 planets headbang.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
Nimii
post Aug 25 2006, 08:36 AM
Comment #14


Dedicated Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 22493
Joined: 20-October 03
Member No.: 3



Today news say that the scientists who met up at Prague have decided that Pluto cannot be included in our SS, as a major planet any more, coz it has an oblong orbit and it crosses the orbit of Neptune!

Pluto can be only be considered as a dwarf planet? Sigh! Now we have only 8 of them in our SS

bechara Pluto

sad.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
Mandrake
post Aug 25 2006, 08:02 PM
Comment #15


Dedicated Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 3856
Joined: 11-April 05
From: Mumbai, India
Member No.: 2066



Pluto was always a pretender.

When William Herschel discovered Neptune, he deduced that Neptune had some erratic behavioue which could only be caused by a much larger planet beyond Neptune.

He did some calculations and predicted that the planet should be found at a certain distance.

In 1930, astronomers found a round body exactly at the place mentioned by Herschel. In their haste to declare a 'great find' they quickly named it 'pluto' and added it to the solar system.



The fact is, the calculations were flawed. This was noticed fairly early, but ignored.

The object found at the pre-determined place was a sheer coincidence.

But the object was far too small to be even seen, let alone have a large enough mass to have any disturbing influence on Neptune or its orbit.

This fact was shoved under the carpet for a long time.

In 1955, astronomers showed enough guts to do away with two other 'pretenders' between mars and jupiter, and named them 'asteroids'. But even then, Pluto got away easily.

And finally in 2006, when calling Pluto a planet meant calling another 50-odd objects as planets, astronomers have decided to do away with Pluto.

You can bet that this isn't the last we have heard on this issue.


Self - belief is the most potent force.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
Nimii
post Aug 25 2006, 09:56 PM
Comment #16


Dedicated Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 22493
Joined: 20-October 03
Member No.: 3



Yes and I am sure they will come up with some other new propounded theory and add/remove another planet. Well the geography books will definitely need a rehashing with juz 8 planets and I wonder what the astrologers would do?! N rolleyes.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
Mandrake
post Aug 26 2006, 07:00 AM
Comment #17


Dedicated Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 3856
Joined: 11-April 05
From: Mumbai, India
Member No.: 2066



Astrologers in India won't feel any diff. They have tradifionally gone by 9 planets which were : sun, moon, mercury, venus, mars, jupiter, saturn, rahu and ketu.

The westerners are going to have a tough time, with their destinies changing big time laugh.gif


Self - belief is the most potent force.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
Nimii
post Aug 26 2006, 08:54 AM
Comment #18


Dedicated Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 22493
Joined: 20-October 03
Member No.: 3



So our Astrological science has indeed developed well, with the knowledge that you cannot you rely on the scientific discoveries smile.gif Smartalecs indeed!

Haan westerners deserve it mad.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
Nimii
post Aug 29 2006, 03:36 PM
Comment #19


Dedicated Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 22493
Joined: 20-October 03
Member No.: 3



Here is the sad story of Pluto getting eliminated and henceforth to be termed as a dwarf planet. A flash presentation. Very impressive page. A diagrammatic description given as to why it has been downsized.

Never knew Pluto and its moon Charon revovled around each other. Hmmm...

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-08-24-pluto_x.htm

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
Mandrake
post Aug 30 2006, 01:24 PM
Comment #20


Dedicated Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 3856
Joined: 11-April 05
From: Mumbai, India
Member No.: 2066



That's what has always been an issue. Charon is almost as big as as pluto. So whether to call them twin planets, or call charon the satellite as it is slightly smaller, or just ignore both.
Finally - ignoring both!
But you haven't heard the last on this yet. Indian astronomers are planning to write to the International Union of Astronomers to let pluto be.
Now watch the fun begin wink2.gif

Self - belief is the most potent force.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page

2 Pages V  1 2 >  
« Next Oldest · Nimz panoramic outlooks! · Next Newest »