Slashdot Mirror
The Sun's 10th Planet... Sedna?
dsanfte writes "While NASA remains intentionally vague, promising only a news conference Monday, The Australian has the details. The new planet, dubbed Sedna after the Inuit goddess of the sea, is 3 billion km further from the sun than Pluto, and is slightly smaller at 2000km in diameter. This discovery has apparently reignited the debate as to how big a solar object must be in order to qualify as a 'planet', but it is significant nonetheless."
So why should we start counting an even smaller "planet"? Pluto gets grandfathered in, and that's it.
I wonder what is so important that NASA is going to wait until Monday. Maybe they will be unveiling something else at the same time?
--
Real-time deal updates
I want to know what happened to Quoaor or whatever the hell it's name is. wasn't it planet 10 last year?
I thought planets were Roman gods. It's not even like we've run out of them. We can still find Vulcan (Mulciber if you want to avoid rabit Trekkies), Juno, Minerva, Apollo (You can call this one Phoebus if you want to avoid confusing it with space probes), Diana, Vesta.
And that's before you start getting slightly obscure ones like Janus, Bacchus (Or Liber), Fanus, Quirinus, Pomona, or Vertumnus.
Philip Sandifer's academic website
Out in the Kuiper belt and the Oort cloud there are thought to be as many as one trillion objects - most small 1 to 10 km chucks of ice.
The really interesting question is, what is the mass distribution ? (I.e., how does the number of objects scale with their mass ?) This is basically unconstrained by real data. All such cosmic mass distributions are steep, but many (for example, planets in the Solar System, Asteroids in the Asteroid belt) are dominated by the most massive bodies.
If this holds true in the Oort cloud, in particular, there could be some pretty big objects. Even a Jupiter sized object might be able to hide from the Infrared surveys (the best way of detecting such an object).
I agree--I say stop this silly argument about what counts as a planet and what is a planetoid.
Does it really matter if we have 8, 9, or 10 planets or 8 planets and 1 or two planetoids?
I say it's more important to know they're there, what their names are, and let people refer to them as planets, planetoids, Kuiper Belt objects, or whatever they want to call them.
I know there are various arguments that the word "planet" should have a precise definition, and that you can make arguments about Pluto not being one based on things like orbit. But reality is not precise--things don't come in discrete mass sizes.
I say leave the distinction between planet and planetoid fuzzy, and focus on the objects themselves.
Given that Europa is a ice world, and it might contain life under it's icy floor, we might find life there in a 100 years.
Second, these ice planets could make for good hydrogen fuel source when we finally venture out that far.....
Actually, yes. Thanks to them assigning minor moons the names of deities, they've pretty much run out of Roman gods, Greek alternates, and have even put a pretty good dent in the Norse pantheon.
Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
Not only is Sedna not Roman, but we already have a planet named after a sea god -- Neptune. If they want to name a planet after an Inuit god, why not use one that isn't redundant?
If both focal points for the orbit are contained within the volume of one body, or if one focal point is contained within the volume of one body and the other focal point outside of both bodies, then the smaller object is a moon of the larger.
If both focal points are outside the volume of both bodies, or if one focal point is within the volume of one body and the other focal point within the other body, then the pair of objects should be considered a double planet.
So Pluto/Charon, following this reasoning, should be considered a double planet.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Anyway something 2000km in diameter is hardly small. Aren't astoroids that could kill earth just a couple of kilometers accross?
Anyway excluding it is sizeist. Can't have that. If you are going to classify keep it simple. Object larger then a rock orbetting the sun and being close to round. I think that is what most people consider a planet.
So welcome sedna.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
It won't be an issue until they find a Kuiper object that is bigger than Pluto. Then they'll have an awkward situation. Making Pluto a planet when this bigger object isn't one doesn't make sense; nobody wants to add a new planet, because in retrospect it was a mistake to make Pluto a planet, and adding another Kuiper object would just compound it; and removing Pluto from the list of planets offends tradition.
Everyone wants to push this off as long as possible, so if the new object is really smaller than Pluto, they'll breathe a sigh of relief and go on with things as they are.
First off, I was really pissed off at NASA and the media outlets for the scant coverage of the mission results concerning water on mars. All we got was a 4 minute introduction and one panelist into the release and it was back to the CNN/FOX 30 minute cycle of endless Pro-Bush news bits and Iraq coverage. Luckily, I have the NASA TV channel on satellite, so I was able to flip over -- but for the >95% of americans without NASA tv, they missed out on an hour's worth of enlightening details of Mars, straight from scientists and not tabloid writers with no understanding of science.
Now, this release isn't even going to be televised. The only initial outlet is a conference call for reporters only.
I'm ashamed of NASA and I am ashamed of our media coverage of science. When I was a kid, every space shuttle launch was televised. Taking 10-30 minutes of time out of my day to watch the occasional launch helped inspire me to think above the quagmire I was born into, to know there was something greater. Kids today get MTV and 24 hour news spin channels in 30 minute loops.
But hey, at least they get a nice, fast Internet and ~225 national channels of garbage via satellite.
Ten Planets? You haven't been keeping up with here astrology has been going the last twenty-fove years. I know astrologers who use twenty planets, most of which are imaginary. [ Dutch School of Astrology. Germans School of Astrology. The Planets of Alice Bailey, and related flakes.]
This, of course, ignores the two hundred or so asteroids which new age astrologers use. And don't forget the plethora of comets, meteor showers, deep space objects, and other things that may, or may not exist.
And to be sure that you haven't forgotten anything, there are umpteen "Arabic Parts", Midpoints, Orbs, harmonics, ( or something like that) etc.
In short, roughly 10^8 objects that no self-respecting astrologer would omit, if one believes in the validity of all the books on astrology that have been published.
I'm all for including other deity names from other cultures, but for the sake of consistency, the new object (planet, comet, asteroid, whatever) should have a Roman name...it's not like there aren't enough objects elsewhere to be culturally sensitive...
When all of your wishes have been granted, many of your dreams will be destroyed - Marilyn Manson
Wanna know what will REALLY give the conspiracy theorists, New Age freaks, etc? "Sedna" is "Andes" spelled backwards! Everyone knows the advanced Inca civilization lived in the Andes mountains, and there are more than enough wacky theories about the Incas involving aliens and whatnot. Oooh...why is an Inuit god named after backwards-Andes...are the Inuits actually Inca refugees? They're close the Pole, too, and there are already crazy theories about a hole to the interior of the earth where advanced civilizations live, and the Eskimos are somehow related....
Yeah, can't imagine a worse name, really. Backwards-spelled stuff is pure gold in the conspiracy community.
...
They might have chosen the name Sedna because the object is in the Kuiper Belt. If I recall correctly, the naming convention for Kuiper Belt Objects is that of creation deities. Sedna is the most important deity to the Inuit and plays a vital role in one creation tale, what with her parents chopping off her fingers and those fingers turning into various aquatic animals.
There was a formula for predicting orbital paths that was related to Fibbunaci's sequence, I wonder if sedna falls into the sequence?
meh
What happened to Nemesis, which was supposed to doom us all?
Pluto has an atmosphere, so it's a planet. What about Sedna? Does anyone know, or must we wait until Monday?
If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
The concept of Planets should no longer be regarded as a formal (as opposed to colloquial) classification. We have four rocky inners, four gassy outers, and a vast number of planetismals. Forming a group of the first two classes, with or without a few of the last, is a false classification.
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
Did you know that in 1998 Senator Patrick Leahy, of Vermont, got his State's largest Lake, Lake Champlain, to be reclassified as the 6th Great Lake? At least as far as the awarding of researh grants. Being considered a "Great Lake" made the academic institutions in his constituency eligible to apply for certain research grants.
There is talk of sending a probe to Pluto. Is it possible that it is easier to sell a probe to "planet Pluto" than to send one to Kuiper-belt object Pluto?
I remember, back in the days when I tuned in to debates as to which newsgroups should be created, the big debate as to whether a new group should be talk.acquaria, rec.acquaria or sci.acquaria.
In Leahy's defence, these were environmental research grants, and I should probably assume he added this line to the bill to protect his constituent's natural environment -- not for the petty partisan purposes.
Doesn't this violate the naming convention of using Roman god names for planets and then appropriate names for the moons. For example, Diemos and Phobos were children of Mars, Jupiter is surrounded by moons named for his lovers. Should this planet follow a similar convention and stick with a Roman god or goddess? Perhaps Proserpina, because she's close to Pluto (although really that would be an appropriate name for a moon if Pluto can grab a second one). Perhaps Janus, as god of doorways and bounderies would be appropriate to mark this orbit as the boundary of our solar system.
This new ice ball is another Kuiper Belt Object (KBO), just like Pluto and all the other giant iceballs orbiting beyond Neptune that have been discovered lately. It is estimated that there are at least 70,000 of these objects with a diameter of greater than 100km. We only call Pluto a planet because it was discovered 20 years before the Kuiper Belt was theorized.
what sig?
at least this discovery has the redeeming quality of completely fucking up astrology
Actually no, not at all. Modern astrology sometimes works only with the seven classic planets (Sun and Moon are regarded as planets in astrology systems), but it sometimes works with Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, and also Chiron, Vesta, Juno, Pallas Athena, and another whose name escapes me at the moment. Astrology will have no difficulty assimilating this new body.
Astrological research has gone into a vibrant and interesting phase starting about 15 years ago. Computer tools are opening up whole new ways of studying things, and leading to insights in how transits relate to natal aspect patterns like grand trines and yods.
So astrology is growing in a healthy way, despite the continued bias of stupidass people who mistake their belief system for scientific enquiry.
That would be Bode's Law. It is wiewed as more of a coincidence than a law these days.
According to my hung over calculations Sedna is 67 AUs out, which is not that far off from the 77.6 that Bode predicts, but not really close either.
Sedna isn't actually a creator goddess -- she was born mortal, and became a goddess when the spirits of the air and the moon decided to reward her for her suffering in her mortal life, as she was drowning. Two accounts of the Sedna myth may be found here and here.
In any event, aren't you glad that they're naming it Sedna, and not Uinigumasuittuq?
The moon's orbit is everywhere concave towards the Sun. Therefore, the moon is a satellite of the Sun, and not a satellite of the earth. As such, perhaps it should be called a member of a binary planetary system.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
While you're at it, read this Article too regarding the eleven planets!
How many Planets - 9 ? or 11?
Ancient Greeks wrongly included head of the solar family and moon, our earths satellite. They counted planets as follows : 1) Sun, 2) Moon, 3) Mars, 4 ) Mercury, 5) Jupiter, 6) Venus and 7) Saturn. Indians till date include two more : Rahu and Ketu, mere shadows of earth and moon. To the five genuine planets modern astronomy added the Earth after being (identified with planet class in the medieval age) and latest discoveries of Neptune, Uranus and Pluto (as late as 19th century). This brought back the count to 9.
This received a jolt a decade or two ago. Indian astronomer J.J Rawal in 1978 found that the farthest planets Uranus and Pluto were making significant deviations from established orbits and explained them in terms of gravitational influence of two as - yet unseen planets, whose sizes and orbits he estimated. It was only in 1988 his proposal got due publicity when NASA confirmed possibility of Rawals outermost planet (or the 11th), by analysing their own data gathered through their various space missions. NASAs computations of mass and orbit tallied with Rawals with refinements and additional details. Nevertheless, NASA could not guess his 10th planet. Early this year (1999) NASA brought the 11th planet to the limelight again among astronomical community and general public. However, both the planets of Rawals still remain unconfirmed optically.
Has Quran anything to say about the number of solar planets? Yes, indeed!
When Joseph said unto his father : O my father! Surely I saw in a dream eleven planets and the Sun and the Moon....... (Yusuf: 4)
One may note the following points of immense significance.
* Quran does not confuse the planets (kawakib) with stars (nujm).
* Quran excludes Sun and Moon clearly from planets. They belong to a higher and lower order respectively. Such clear demarcation was achieved only by modern astronomy which is but a few centuries old.
* The number of planets are given as 11. We mumins have absolutely no doubt that it is a matter of time that modern astronomy will reach this count. Science is now in the process of gathering evidence for what it has already made indications.
Incidentally, when in 1988 news of NASAs findings broke out concerning Rawals prediction of two extra planets this author published an article titled New Planet Discovered - As Prophesied by The Quran? In Islamic Voice (March, 1988) quoting this Quranic verse now under discussion. He sent a copy to the astronomer which reached him exactly on the day he returned from lecture tour from US. On the very same day he wrote back expressing his amazement at the Quranic prophecy and remarked that he would thenceforth quote the particular verse whenever he lectured on his discovery.
The author would also like to express his regrets that many translators of Quran in English as well as languages use the word stars in this verse instead of planets which Allah specifies. They are either unable to distinguish between these two different classes of heavenly bodies or are under the mistaken impression that planets are merely a subclass of stars or vice-versa.
Will sys-admin for food
The name is unofficial -- it takes a while for the IAU to grant official names to asteroids -- and just because it's sizeable (larger than Charon, but smaller than Pluto) doesn't mean it's sparking new controversy over whether it's a planet or not. Practically the only "controversy" about planethood that's ever taken place is among the media and amateurs. Professional astronomers have rarely cared over the details of whether you call Pluto (say) a planet or not; they know that the nomenclature was invented by humans and so the celestial bodies themselves don't feel any compulsion to fit into our little arbitrary lines of demarcation.
In mild defense of astrology, someone like Randi who actively seeks to debunk astrology and the supernatural is probably not terribly invested in designing a fair test. I mean, let's face it - his goal is not to determine whether or not astrology is accurate - his goal is to repeatedly show it is not.
Which is not good science - it's not objective. Which is where a lot of the science/religion conflict comes up. Each side really wants to disprove the other side.
In the end, they're equally based on unprovable assumptions. (Go ahead - prove that the world as you observe it corresponds to objective reality.)
The best that can be said is that, given a set of premises that contradict the premises of astrology, astrology is false.
Philip Sandifer's academic website
If it's big enough to assume spherical shape by the action of gravity, it's a planet.
Aren't Ceres and Vesta both gravitaionally spherical(ish)
You should also include that the body is massive enought to reatin some form of atmosphere. Pluto and Mercury manage this, the asteroids don't as far as I am aware.
Andy
Yes, I am aware that a single highly speculative paper had been written, imagining a network that could survive a nuclear war. But, I believe, the guy who wrote it was not one of creators of the Arpanet. I specifically chose the word "built" as opposed to "designed" in anticipation of questions from those who heard an echo of this early paper.
The reason I mentioned this meme is that it is so entertaining that it is often repeated in the more entertaining form, that, "the internet was built to survive a nuclear war". I mentioned it as an example of an example where the falsehood has more power than the truth -- because it is entertaining.