Chewbacca Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_UB313 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hilander72 Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 I vote not a planet. Aren't TNOs considered to be asteroids like those orbiting the sun between mars and jupiter, the asteroidbelt? I also heard that the objects in the asteroidbelt are called planetoids, cause they never formed to become a "real" planet. Is it an asteroid, planetoid, planet or if it drifts closer to the sun maybe it will become a comet? Well who knows it's so frustratingly confusing (sciencebabble?) :thinking: I suggest the call the TNOs: Rogue Popsicles. :cyclops: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S0V13T Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 Is it wrong that as soon as I saw the title of this thread, my brain read it as "2003 UBER"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TetsuoShima Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 Is it wrong that as soon as I saw the title of this thread' date=' my brain read it as "2003 UBER"?[/quote'] You spend way to much time on the net S0V13T! :p Anyhow, I don't think they should call it a planet, since even Pluto is being considered to not being called a planet anymore. Okay, it's bigger, but on average, it's even further away and it's trajectory is also not like the other planets.... Not that that matters much... We'll just have to wait and see what the final definition of planet is going to be when they finally decide upon that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mav Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 Voted planet. Based on the first bit of information, and my own opinion, it appears to be a planet. within the range of a planet, size, shape, the whole schebang. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allardyn Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 Planet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_UB313 was 2 seconds to google it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewbacca Posted January 17, 2006 Author Share Posted January 17, 2006 Some scientists have suggested that the defination of 'planet' be changed so that only bodies the size of Pluto or larger can qualify as planets. I think this is a good idea, because if we don't made this change to the rule, we could soon have hundreds of planets in the solar system. People think that with the change, we might reach 15-20, which is a lot more reasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mav Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 one question that has boggled my mind is that they say this planet is made of gas right. well we already have planets made of gas in our solar system. how can a ball of gas (not counting say, the sun) be a "planet"? Shouldnt a planet have a tangible landmass that you could pheasably land on via rover or space shuttle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grillguy85 Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 one question that has boggled my mind is that they say this planet is made of gas right. well we already have planets made of gas in our solar system. how can a ball of gas (not counting say' date=' the sun) be a "planet"? Shouldnt a planet have a tangible landmass that you could pheasably land on via rover or space shuttle?[/quote'] Do you consider the sun a planet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arktis Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune are supposed to all have rocky (or frozen) cores, and from what we can tell, 2003 UB313 does have a surface with methane ice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hilander72 Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 Xena awaits her big break as a planet Jonathan Leake, Science Editor ASTRONOMERS are expected to add at least one new planet to the nine already known to exist in our solar system. The new body, provisionally named Xena, is nine billion miles from the Sun, about 100 times more distant than the Earth and well beyond Pluto. Its diameter is 1,490 miles, 70 miles greater than that of Pluto, the smallest and most distant planet, which may qualify it for planetary status. The decision will be taken next month at a meeting of the International Astronomical Union (IAU) in Prague when 2,000 astronomers will be asked to vote on the “expansion†of the solar system. Read the rest of the article... Xena = 2003 UB313 Soon we'll know what is a planet (and what is not). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GorunNova Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 Well, if it's bigger than Pluto, has a moon, and has a relatively steady orbit, then it has to be a planet. Either that, or Pluto has to stop being a planet... ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hilander72 Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 All of this is a matter of perspective... ;) If there wasn't any other objects besides Xena beyond Pluto it would be considered a planet without doubt, but there are hundreds of "objects" out there and the line has to be drawn somewhere. It's still "fun" to see if the normally very "scientific" scientist will agree on a scientific definition of a planet. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TetsuoShima Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 Just scrap Pluto as a planet. If Pluto is a planet 'no-more', then the problem is solved.... Size matters, or so I'm told. :cyclops: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TFMF Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 Wow - it's really far away from the sun - rotates round the sun every 557 years :stare: (some long days on that planet ;) ) Well i think it is a planet - but it's probably best to wait untill we get our deffinition of a planet in September Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZaphodiLe Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 Pluto is only considered a planet because it is the only "planet" discovered by Americans. It is actually too small to be a planet imo. It is more the size of a moon. In fact : The Moon Io Europa Ganymede Callisto Titan Triton are all bigger than Pluto. So I don't think 2003 Uberleet is a planet either :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tablet Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 If it was discovered back in say 1930 does anyone think that it would be classified as a planet today? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hilander72 Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 As I said it's a matter of perspective... I consider Pluto to be a real planet. When I first learned about planets (late 70s, Voyager 1 & 2, Viking, etc...) there was no other known large "objects" out there and I see no reason to take away Plutos status as a planet, only because new "objects" have been discovered in the past decade. The Question is if Xena also should be classified as a planet or not and obviously if new large "objects" not yet discovered should be classified as planets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenebrae Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 I don't keep up with astrophysics but I've seen enough sky at night to know that the wrangling over the classification of Pluto as a planet precedes the discovery of Xena. It's more likely that a more discerning definition of planet will be introduced. Pluto is more of a planetesimal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TetsuoShima Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 Here's the latest on this topic. http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060814/full/442724a.html Next week, by a simple show of hands at an astronomy meeting, Earth could go from being one of nine planets to one of twelve — with unknown numbers yet to be discovered. A seven-member panel appointed by the International Astronomical Union (IAU) has recommended a new definition of a planet: any body in orbit around a star that is not a star itself nor in orbit around a much larger planet, and that is massive enough for gravity to have squished it into an approximately spherical shape. However, since this new definition could mean there suddenly will be over 50 planets in the solar system (most from the Kuiper belt), they are not really sure if they want to accept this definition, so they came up with an addendum, so to speak. To acknowledge that trans-neptunian objects are different to the other planets, the committee proposed a subcategory of planets known as 'plutons'. These are planets that take more than 200 years to orbit the Sun and would include Pluto, Charon and UB313. So as it would seem now, they are going for a compromise definition, which in fact may be the best thing to do. Have 8 'real' planets and a few 'minor' planets outside of the Pluto orbit and in the asteroid belt (Ceres for example). I like the idea, finally Pluto will no longer cause problems and everybody else is happy too, since they will still be a planet subclass. Will have to wait to see how it will really turn out though. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now