10th planet of our solar system discovered!

[Skyman87]

That's fascinating. I thought Sedna was interesting, but now we have this on our hands. I wonder if they actually will determine it a planet, since it is bigger than Pluto. But yeah, there's still a debate whether Pluto is a planet, sooo....

 

[Rochir]

Maybe we should hold a naming competition? I'd vote for

Freakazoidea!

 

[Caprice]

They should name it "I'm too darned small to really be a planet" just like they should have named Pluto "I'm an asteroid with a rock orbiting me"

Planets should have to have some reasonable size... 3000km in diameter just doesn't cut it. Even Mercury at 4868 km in diameter is almost too small in my opinion... The fact that something orbits the sun in a predictable pattern shouldn't qualify it for "planet" status.

This useless rambling brought to you by the letter C, the numbers 7 and 8, and the giant ball of gas Jupiter.

 

[Illuminatus]

Why would the name be secretive?

There's no secret about it. However, the IAU has the final say on the name, and it's pointless for Caltech to announce what they want to call it before the IAU gives the thumbs-up/down.

Well, I'm not very concerned about what they name it. The big question is what is its orbit??? Extreme elliptical orbit, possibly?

As far as I know, it's a fairly typical shape, however, it's inclined at almost 45 degrees to the plane of the solar system. That's why it hadn't been discovered until recently, planetoid hunters typically don't look that far off the plane of the solar system. There's little point, when you've got the Kupiter Belt (for example) to look at on the plane of the solar system.

They have yet to officially deem it a planet. I think a name would come after that.

Not really. There's plenty of minor objects that are named, like asteroids and Kupiter Belt Objects.

They should name it "I'm too darned small to really be a planet" just like they should have named Pluto "I'm an asteroid with a rock orbiting me"

Planets should have to have some reasonable size... 3000km in diameter just doesn't cut it. Even Mercury at 4868 km in diameter is almost too small in my opinion... The fact that something orbits the sun in a predictable pattern shouldn't qualify it for "planet" status.

But where do you draw the line? The problem is that there's no easy way to define a planet. Are we going to say that, say, Mars is the defining size? Some proposed definitions say that any body orbiting the sun that has sufficient mass to have formed into a sphere should be defined a planet, but then the number of planets in the solar system would shoot up to 20 (at least) overnight. See what I mean? There's never been anything remotely like a standard definition. When Pluto was discovered, way back in 1930, it seemed pretty obvious that it was a planet, but with the current level of astronomical technology, we're finding that there's a lot of big chunks of rock that are way out there, and it's giving astronomers ulcers.

 

[Skyman87]

Mercury I think follows pretty much the same eliptical orbital pattern that the other planets follow. Pluto is the one of the nine with the most irregular orbit.

 

[Psalms34]

Mercury I think follows pretty much the same eliptical orbital pattern that the other planets follow. Pluto is the one of the nine with the most irregular orbit.

Yes, and I wonder if there is any relation to that with pluto being so far out. The pull of the sun is so minimal at that range that such an object could have an extremely elliptical orbit. This could be a good cause as to why we have such a large asteroid field in our solar system; because possibly a planet had such an orbit that it actually crossed paths of another planet, somewhat like comets do, and they collided once their own gravitational pull attracted each other. With such a mass orbiting so far out, I wonder how elliptical its path is set to. Could it be that it was discovered now because it is on a returning path that took many years, decades or even longer?

 

[Psalms34]

Wouldn't it be a kick if what the three wise men saw in the sky was actually planet X flying buy? ...and here it returns once again. Would be a pretty neat sign of the times if it were so. Not saying that planet X is in fact what was seen 2000 years ago, but that would be one wild ride if it were.

 

[Caprice]

They should name it "I'm too darned small to really be a planet" just like they should have named Pluto "I'm an asteroid with a rock orbiting me"

Planets should have to have some reasonable size... 3000km in diameter just doesn't cut it. Even Mercury at 4868 km in diameter is almost too small in my opinion... The fact that something orbits the sun in a predictable pattern shouldn't qualify it for "planet" status.

This useless rambling brought to you by the letter C, the numbers 7 and 8, and the giant ball of gas Jupiter.

But where do you draw the line? The problem is that there's no easy way to define a planet. Are we going to say that, say, Mars is the defining size? Some proposed definitions say that any body orbiting the sun that has sufficient mass to have formed into a sphere should be defined a planet, but then the number of planets in the solar system would shoot up to 20 (at least) overnight. See what I mean?

I'd be happy with ANY firm definition. As it stands now, I don't see any pattern to how they define planets. Pluto isn't a sphere and doesn't have a "normal" orbit in comparison to the others, plus Pluto's "moon" is nearly the same size as Pluto itself! I'm willing to bet that this 10th 'planet' is no more spherical than Pluto, it's just bigger than most of the asteroids.

There's never been anything remotely like a standard definition.

That is my main complaint. Create a firm definition and I'd be happy.

Heck, as it is now, I'm amazed that some of Saturn's and Jupiter's moons don't count as planets, some of them are pretty big and spheroid, and at least a few even have atmospheres.

 

[UberLutheran]

Gustav Holst's suite, The Planets, has only eight movements.

Who's going to write the other two movements?