How many planets?

[Karlos]

nadoom wrote:

Incidentally, with the introduction of new planets we also have to also expand the zodiac. The planet Ceres this week is in the constellation Piscis Australis at about magnitude of 7.62 (at close approach).

its all bollocks any way but wouldnt that mean that all the previous predictions were incorrect?

They probably had to rejig it all anyway when pluto was discovered ;-)

[nadoom]

how cheated they must have all felt when pluto was discovered! :crazy:

[bloodline]

Hey you two! Don't mock others beliefs... Even if they are provably utter rubbish...

[Vincent]

@bloodline

:lol:

I was going to say it's too much fun, but yours is better!

[bloodline]

Vincent wrote:
@bloodline

:lol:

I was going to say it's too much fun, but yours is better!

:-D

[blobrana]

Video streams from XXVIth GA IAU Prague Congress Centre.

Weblink

The heated planet debate link is at the bottom.

[Hyperspeed]

Wasn't there a couple of planets beyond Pluto called 'Smiley' and 'Cala'?

And what about planets that have been partially destroyed and no longer orbit a star... like Krypton!

[blobrana]

Woohoo!
Astronomers have approved the  historic new planet definition  guidelines today,  and  downsizing Earth's neighbourhood from nine principal heavenly bodies to eight by demoting Pluto.

[cecilia]

Oh Snap!! bye Bye Pluto!! :-o

[countzero]

So they went for the first solution stated in mike brown's page. I think it's the most logical one for reasons explained in the page. a brave decision. will take some time to get used to though.

[jkirk]

demoting Pluto

NNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOO

say it isn't so. mickey will be so sad.


anyway seriously i kinda expected this but i had almost thought that we were going to end up with more planets out of this.

[cecilia]

countzero wrote:
 will take some time to get used to though.

really?? it took me about 2 seconds.
Pluto is now a "dwarf planet"

[Ian-uk]

it said on the news they were adding planets not taking them away

[bloodline]

Good bye Pluto!

[Agafaster]

I see the backlash has already started !!

my personal take:

Pluto is not a planet. its too small, there are other objects that arent automatically planets that are the same size, or bigger, such as 2003-UB313 'Xena' (what a crap name!)

I reckon on the Earth and Moon being a double planet - ok, it fails the barycentre test, but my opinion is based on the sheer size of our moon, and relative to the earth too. no where else has a moon this big in relation to the primary body.

There is a problem with the definition: 'must have cleared its orbital neighbourhood of other objects' this is done by either swallowing up these objects, or ejecting to another part of the solar system - this falls down when we consider that the earth, mars and indeed Jupiter have objects in their Trojan positions... ie: around the L4 and L5 Lagrange Points. does this now mean these 3 are not planets ?!

the battle rages on!!

[Tigger]

Agafaster wrote:

I reckon on the Earth and Moon being a double planet - ok, it fails the barycentre test, but my opinion is based on the sheer size of our moon, and relative to the earth too. no where else has a moon this big in relation to the primary body.

Charon (Pluto's moon) is significantly bigger in proportion to Pluto.  
    -Tig