Slashdot Mirror


Object Defies Categorization As Planet or Star

Kligat writes "The COROT project of the French Space Agency has detected an object described as defying categorization as a planet, star, or brown dwarf. Although only 0.8 times the radius of Jupiter, it is over 20 times as massive, giving it a density twice that of the metal platinum. If it is a star, it would be the smallest of those ever discovered."

119 comments

  1. Um... by IronMagnus · · Score: 5, Funny

    Thats no moon...

    1. Re:Um... by rk · · Score: 5, Funny

      Cue the Death Star references in 3... damn! Late to the party again!

    2. Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      To replace a lot of "funny" tags on post there should be a new categorization called "obligatory."

      Because I, for one, welcome our new obligatory overlords.

    3. Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      It already exists. It is called -1 Troll.

    4. Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Thats no moon... How do you know that? It could easily have been a planet and a lot of heavy moons. That would explain why the planet has a low visible cross section but a high apparent mass.
    5. Re:Um... by Goalie_Ca · · Score: 1

      What if it is a dyson sphere!!111

      --

      ----
      Go canucks, habs, and sens!
    6. Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aren't those immense with low density? Isn't this the opposite?

  2. Thats no moon ... by hostyle · · Score: 5, Funny

    Eh. how about calling it "large dense object in space" also known as The Shatner

    --
    Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.
    1. Re:Thats no moon ... by TigerNut · · Score: 4, Funny

      I have mod points, but there is no category for "oddly appropriate gratuitous abuse". Whadya think?

      --

      Less is more.

    2. Re:Thats no moon ... by hostyle · · Score: 1

      +1 Gets it!

      --
      Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.
    3. Re:Thats no moon ... by BlueStrat · · Score: 3, Funny

      Eh. how about calling it "large dense object in space" also known as The Shatner

      Or how about just "Shat" for short?

      [Father O'Flannery voice] Aye, ye'll be burnin' in purgatory fer that one, me boy-o! [/Father O'Flannery voice]

      Sorry.

      Really.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    4. Re:Thats no moon ... by bugnuts · · Score: 1

      defying categorization as a planet, star, or brown dwarf

      Sounds like the Oprah Phenomenon to me. :-)

    5. Re:Thats no moon ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    6. Re:Thats no moon ... by DeadChobi · · Score: 1

      The spirit world is bullshit!

      --
      SRSLY.
    7. Re:Thats no moon ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if you look harder, you may find the Shadow Fortress, home of Umbra.

    8. Re:Thats no moon ... by somersault · · Score: 1

      Something about your name and post made me think about a large planet firing gun called the "Shat-o-caster"

      --
      which is totally what she said
    9. Re:Thats no moon ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the broadest sense, the way to extract useful work is to find a thermodynamically favourable process (i.e., one which creates greater entropy in the Universe as a whole and ALSO locally) and couple it to a process which reduces entropy locally (but increasing entropy in the universe as whole).

      Entropy here is from statistical mechanics -- the (log) relationship between the number of possible microstates that can combine to produce an observable large scale macrostate.

      The production of high-energy photons and other particles from gravitational collapse is a natural process that is thermodynamically favourable. Dyson spheres couple with those particles to do useful work, but the trade-off is a reradiation of lower-energy photons. The energy reduction is proportional to the amount of work done and the efficiency of the work extraction mechanism.

      An ordinary star masked behind a Dyson sphere would still radiate lots of long-wave photons from the surface of the sphere. At a distance of only a few light years, a Dyson sphere would most likely look like a pointlike blackbody radiator, and would be pretty obvious. In principle some of that radiation could be channeled into jets that are off axis to us, and which do not interact with any interstellar matter in a way which would provide a secondary indication of the sphere's existence.

      In practice, such hiding poses a difficult aiming problem (there are lots of gases which would produce an astronomical ASE which we would see given almost any possible orientation of the Dyson sphere waste energy jet). It would also significantly reduce the amount of useful work the Sphere itself could extract from the star it surrounds. If you are only going to use a tiny fraction of the star's output, why wastefully completely surround the star with a complicated shell structure instead of using only arrays of "panels" in orbit around it? "It looks pretty!" is in the small set of plausible answers.

      Dyson-like Structures which do not completely surround a star would produce eclipses which would be detectable at considerable range. In fact, if they were commonplace within a few Megaparsecs of Earth, they would be extremely handy distance measuring devices for Earthbound astronomers!

    10. Re:Thats no moon ... by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      Something about your name and post made me think about a large planet firing gun called the "Shat-o-caster"

      *Whew!*

      I'm just relieved it was a *planet*-firing gun I and my post reminded you of, rather than something more closely-related to "Shat" and a barnyard! :D

      Cheers!

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  3. How massive by powerlord · · Score: 4, Funny

    Oddly enough, the interstitial ad for this is for "Mass Effect"

    --
    This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
  4. Chuch Norris by Swizec · · Score: 3, Funny

    Only Chuck Norris could ever be denser than platinum, so this is either him or soon getting destroyed because only Chuck Norris can defy the laws of physics.

    1. Re:Chuch Norris by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I don't understand is why reporters always make comparisons with things people have no grasp of. Expressing the density in terms of the density of steel or water would make sense because people come in contact with large amounts of such materials every day, but platinium?

      Oh well, at least they didn't use libraries of congress per cubic furlong.

    2. Re:Chuch Norris by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 1

      It's because the reporters are dense too.

    3. Re:Chuch Norris by francium+de+neobie · · Score: 1

      What happens when Chuck Norris roundhouse kicks a galactic black hole?

    4. Re:Chuch Norris by quesogrande · · Score: 1

      Light cannot escape from black holes. Black holes cannot escape from Chuck Norris.

    5. Re:Chuch Norris by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So... Chuck Norris is made of Iridium or Osmium? .. or Neutronium?

  5. The Great Evil? by fitten · · Score: 3, Funny

    Quick... somebody run find Leeloo...

    1. Re:The Great Evil? by ChowRiit · · Score: 2, Funny

      We don't need to worry until it rings Bill Gates...

    2. Re:The Great Evil? by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      Quick... somebody run find Leeloo.

      I think I can safely say you'd have the *eager* assistance of every heterosexual male on the planet for that task...

      Cheers!

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    3. Re:The Great Evil? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Go away. You can have her back tomorrow.

  6. Sorry... by Volatar · · Score: 1, Funny

    My bathroom broke on an interstellar sight-seeing trip and I had to go real bad...

    1. Re:Sorry... by Nos. · · Score: 3, Funny

      Nibbler?

    2. Re:Sorry... by Tr3vin · · Score: 5, Funny

      My bathroom broke on an interstellar sight-seeing trip and I had to go real bad... That had to hurt. The object is much larger than Uranus...
    3. Re:Sorry... by inode_buddha · · Score: 5, Funny

      It must have been the Captain's Log...

      --
      C|N>K
    4. Re:Sorry... by mazarin5 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's been a long, long, time since I've seen a Uranus joke that made me laugh :)

      --
      Fnord.
    5. Re:Sorry... by flewp · · Score: 1

      Been awhile here too, but I figured it was due to the name change to Urectum to end all those silly jokes.

      --
      WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
  7. Brown Dwarf... by OMNIpotusCOM · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...needs classification badly

    1. Re:Brown Dwarf... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh man, I haven't laughed this hard in a long time. Thanks!

    2. Re:Brown Dwarf... by h4rm0ny · · Score: 1


      That's got to be one of the most obscure jokes I've ever seen on Slashdot. Nice!

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    3. Re:Brown Dwarf... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anonymous Coward is about to die!

  8. It's a Dwarf! by flaming+error · · Score: 4, Informative
    From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_dwarf:

    Brown dwarfs are sub-stellar objects with a mass below that necessary to maintain hydrogen-burning nuclear fusion reactions in their cores, as do stars on the main sequence, but which have fully convective surfaces and interiors, with no chemical differentiation by depth. Brown dwarfs occupy the mass range between that of large gas giant planets and the lowest mass stars; this upper limit is between 75[1] and 80 Jupiter masses (MJ). Currently there is some debate as to what criterion to use to define the separation between a brown dwarf from a giant planet at very low brown dwarf masses (~13 MJ ), and whether brown dwarfs are required to have experienced fusion at some point in their history. In any event, brown dwarfs heavier than 13 MJ do fuse deuterium and those above ~65 MJ also fuse lithium.
    1. Re:It's a Dwarf! by ChowRiit · · Score: 1

      Yes but they don't have such high densities - I think the point is that it's a huge anomaly for it to have such a high mass with such a small radius - it probably has to be way denser than any brown dwarf could be (as it would have to contain a lot of elements heavier than helium).

      I might be wrong, this is just the impression I got as a physics undergrad.

    2. Re:It's a Dwarf! by PakProtector · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Dear Gods. Maybe it's a black dwarf. A dead star that burned through all its nuclear fuel long ago and has since cooled.

      --

      Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
      man: no entry for woman in the manual.
      "Qua!?"

    3. Re:It's a Dwarf! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dropped a brown dwarf off at the porcelain pool earlier today.

    4. Re:It's a Dwarf! by Goobermunch · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If it is, we're going to have to reevaluate the age of the universe.

      Theoretically speaking, it should take longer than the current estimated age of the universe for a star to go through the evolution to red giant to white dwarf to black dwarf.

      If it is a black dwarf, that'd be flipping cool.

      --AC

    5. Re:It's a Dwarf! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would make for some entertaining reading, since the formation of a black dwarf is hypothesized to take longer than the current...hypothesized age of the universe.
      Alternatively, it could be some freak planet that resulted from the accumulation of material ejected from countless huge stars.

    6. Re:It's a Dwarf! by ChowRiit · · Score: 1

      As the person says about, not in the age of the Universe. I don't know how old it would have to be, but to be that mass I'm fairly sure it would need to be several times older than the Universe itself at least.

      I guess though, the point is noone is really sure what it is yet. My personal guess would be the core of a larger object that somehow lost its envelope, but wasn't dense enough to form a white dwarf, but it's a bit of a mystery.

    7. Re:It's a Dwarf! by Kingrames · · Score: 1

      That would be pretty sweet.

      Because it might imply an entire Jupiter-sized planet mass traveling backwards through time in order to age that much.

      --
      If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
    8. Re:It's a Dwarf! by PakProtector · · Score: 1

      It can't be a black dwarf under current theories, at least those that you (and I) are aware of.

      However, just about a hundred years ago, it wasn't possible for the sun to have been burning for as long as it had been, yet it was there.

      --

      Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
      man: no entry for woman in the manual.
      "Qua!?"

    9. Re:It's a Dwarf! by Lunarsight · · Score: 1

      It can't be a black dwarf under current theories, at least those that you (and I) are aware of.

      IANAA*, but theoretically, could something have potentially contributed to its early demise? Maybe some other heavenly body was sucking the life out of it..

      (*I am not an astronomer..)
    10. Re:It's a Dwarf! by Urkki · · Score: 1

      Maybe some other heavenly body was sucking the life out of it.. No, the problem is heat. A white dwarf has an awful lot of heat. And only known way for a white dwarf to lose heat and cool down is thermal radiation, which is very very slow compared to the amount of heat in a white dwarf. The heat can't be "sucked out" of a white dwarf, so even if a white dwarf was created almost immediately after the big bang, it'd still be very hot.

      Well, I guess you could imagine building a huge cooling pipe system out of some sort of neutronium matter, drill the pipes into the degenerate matter of the white dwarf, and then pump some kind of nucleon fluid through the pipes and into a huge neutronium heat sink you somehow built on the incredibly hot surface of the white dwarf... Now that would be a feat of stellar engineering :-)
    11. Re:It's a Dwarf! by JosKarith · · Score: 1

      Like maybe a RIAA lawyer - they're not technically Heavanly Bodies since the Fall, but it'd kinda fit...

      --
      'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
    12. Re:It's a Dwarf! by abirdman · · Score: 1

      This sounds just like my son's old Athlon 2.7 processor. Just be sure to use lots of thermal paste, and don't forget to plug in the fan-- ever!

      --
      Everything I've ever learned the hard way was based on a statistically invalid sample.
    13. Re:It's a Dwarf! by statemachine · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe it was married.

    14. Re:It's a Dwarf! by BokanoiD · · Score: 1

      What if its heat was 'used', in the sense that we're looking at an (ex-)Dyson sphere? that would certainly make things interesting all of a sudden :)

    15. Re:It's a Dwarf! by The_Wilschon · · Score: 1

      Probably has the wrong spectral signature for that. Unless you can build a dyson sphere out of diatomic hydrogren...

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    16. Re:It's a Dwarf! by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

      Dear Gods. Maybe it's a black dwarf. Leave Gary Coleman alone!
      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    17. Re:It's a Dwarf! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it is, we're going to have to reevaluate the age of the universe, or the current evolutionary theory of stars.

      Theoretically speaking, it should take longer than the current estimated age of the universe for a star to go through the evolution to red giant to white dwarf to black dwarf.

      If it is a black dwarf, that'd be flipping cool.

      --AC Not sure why you would assume only one can be wrong.
    18. Re:It's a Dwarf! by kalirion · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's made of antimatter?

    19. Re:It's a Dwarf! by Rocketship+Underpant · · Score: 1

      Due to the non-uniform passage of time, the universe is not the same age everywhere.

      --
      He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
    20. Re:It's a Dwarf! by Rei · · Score: 1

      It makes me wonder if it's a fairly standard rocky planet apart from being of tremendous size. Anyone have any idea how much iron would compress on a planet that massive? The bigger the planet, the higher the density, even if they're made of the same materials.

      It's pretty amazing to think of. I wonder what the surface of that thing is like? I didn't see any information on the article as to what star it was orbitting or how close, so I don't have any idea what it's surface temperature is like. I doubt it's too hot, or else I'd expect the planet to inflate like the hot jupiters do.

      --
      "Lock and load, Brides of Christ!"
    21. Re:It's a Dwarf! by PakProtector · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's the great spice hoard which keeps Paul Muad'dib alive?

      --

      Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
      man: no entry for woman in the manual.
      "Qua!?"

    22. Re:It's a Dwarf! by Nullav · · Score: 1

      'Is' is relative. :p

      --
      I just read Slashdot for the articles.
    23. Re:It's a Dwarf! by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's the great spice hoard which keeps Paul Muad'dib alive? there's more where that came from
      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    24. Re:It's a Dwarf! by darkonc · · Score: 1
      Perhaps it's a star that supernovaed and blew off all of it's lighter elements before collapsing into a pseudo-black dwarf.

      There explanations besides simple atomic evolution for results like this.

      --
      Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
    25. Re:It's a Dwarf! by PakProtector · · Score: 1

      The Majordomo does not understand why this frightens me.

      --

      Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
      man: no entry for woman in the manual.
      "Qua!?"

    26. Re:It's a Dwarf! by SlowMovingTarget · · Score: 1

      Actually it prefers the term "Non-luminous Little Person".

    27. Re:It's a Dwarf! by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      The bigger the planet, the higher the density, even if they're made of the same materials.

      Mars.

      Mercury.

      Note that one is bigger than the other and the smaller one has a higher density.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    28. Re:It's a Dwarf! by PakProtector · · Score: 1

      And I prefer to be called, "the Master," but you don't see me going around forcing my will upon the people of Earth, now do you, Doctor?

      --

      Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
      man: no entry for woman in the manual.
      "Qua!?"

  9. it's dark matter by ILuvRamen · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Well assuming it isn't as simple as "well it does/doesn't give off light so it is/isn't a star" even though I have no idea why it's not that simple, I'd say it's a good candidate for what most dark matter is. If it doesn't give off light and isn't close enough to a star to be seen (I mean this one is buy others like it) then it's dark, effectively invisible matter. If a nebula comes together from gravity and it's a really, really small nebula, it could form one of these instead of a star and we simply wouldn't be able to see it. Sounds like an explanation for the missing matter to me.

    --
    Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
    1. Re:it's dark matter by ChowRiit · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We've searched for large, dense objects that create dark matter (MACHOs) with microlensing, but there aren't nearly enough. Combined with some other properties of dark matter observed in other galaxies, where it appears to be distinct from normal matter, we're fairly sure now that it's small particles with a mass, such as neutrinos or some as yet undiscovered particle (WIMPs). Wikipedia will probably tell you more.

    2. Re:it's dark matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I got some dark matter for you, its the brown dwarf that came out of Uranus.

    3. Re:it's dark matter by dainichi · · Score: 1

      I think we need another classification of matter. How about "does it matter"?

      --
      "Oooh. I hate it when a paradigm shifts without a clutch"
    4. Re:it's dark matter by Bonobo_Unknown · · Score: 1

      that's not what dark matter is. dark matter is the stuff that fills gaps in equations.

      --
      We don't believe in radical loony monotheistic religions from the middle east -- we're Christians.
    5. Re:it's dark matter by SEWilco · · Score: 1

      I think we need another classification of matter. How about "does it matter"?
      So you're saying we should call this a DIM star.
    6. Re:it's dark matter by dainichi · · Score: 1

      I think we need another classification of matter. How about "does it matter"?
      So you're saying we should call this a DIM star. Exactly. If something doesn't fit in any existing category, we obviously need a new category.
      --
      "Oooh. I hate it when a paradigm shifts without a clutch"
    7. Re:it's dark matter by Mikkeles · · Score: 1

      and dark matter, much like statistics, is generally pulled from one's arsehole.

      --
      Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
  10. Well, if it's not quite huge, but by davidsyes · · Score: 2, Informative

    And bigger than a burning Uranus, call it a stanet, or a plar...

    Actually, I was trying to be silly with Spoonerism, but, upon checking Google, sure enough, it has been done:

    http://www.futuresoon.com/2008/04/six-for-science_11.html

    And, done here, too:

    http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=sciastro&main=570057&type=thread

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  11. Sinistar. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dwarf or Halfling?

  12. FWIW: IANAAP by Goobermunch · · Score: 4, Informative

    Except that Dark Matter as we currently understand it is not simply matter that's "in the dark." Under current cosmological theory, regular baryonic matter, makes up only a small fraction of the universe, with dark matter (i.e., non-baryonic matter) making up some of the rest and dark energy making up approximately 70%.

    So while this object contributes to some of the missing mass in the universe, it's probably not the kind of thing that properly would be called dark matter.

    --AC

  13. And the possible other exoplanet? by delibes · · Score: 3, Interesting

    OK, dense large planet, interesting... hang on, what about the other bit in the article?!
    Other signals detected by the satellite could also indicate the existence of another exoplanet with a radius 1.7 times that of Earth's.
    The little green men are getting more likely all the time...

    --
    This is not a sig
  14. my questions are by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 0, Redundant

    if it does not emit light, how the blazes did we find it? and second, if its has a similar density to platinum, who's to say its not just a big ball of platinum out there? (yea thats the dumb question there)

    --
    I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
    1. Re:my questions are by burgundysizzle · · Score: 1

      You could have RTFA, but this is slashdot almost no-one does that. The method for detecting the planets is in it:

      The satellite uses the transit method to detect planets as they pass in front of their parent star and block out part of the light seen by the telescope.
  15. Can't be a planet by AstrumPreliator · · Score: 3, Funny
    It can't be a planet, by definition:

    * is in orbit around the Sun,
    * has sufficient mass so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and
    * has "cleared the neighbourhood" around its orbit. Emphasis mine.
    1. Re:Can't be a planet by AstrumPreliator · · Score: 1

      Sorry to reply to myself, but the article actually does specify exoplanet multiple times. So the summary is slightly wrong. I hate being pedantic but the IAU forced me to do it! =)

    2. Re:Can't be a planet by Estanislao+Mart�nez · · Score: 1

      I might forgive you if you realize how you just demonstrated how useless such definitions actually are when it comes to increasing our knowledge.

    3. Re:Can't be a planet by clonan · · Score: 1

      That is a typo...

      It's suppose to be in orbit around IT'S sun.

      In other words, an object that has been ejected from a solar system is NOT a planet.

    4. Re:Can't be a planet by CaptainPinko · · Score: 1

      Only if by "our" you mean specifically on /. and additional pop-sci places and not in general (such as for between scientists and such).

      --
      Your CPU is not doing anything else, at least do something.
    5. Re:Can't be a planet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given the potentially complex relationships between an orbiting body in a celestial system[1], you'd think they'd have gone for some more generic label like:

      * is in orbit around a star or stars, where the inner elliptical focus of the orbit is within the [effective] body of the central star[s]. ie: it's definitely NOT a binary system

      [1] I'd have called it a planetary system, except by the current definition (if the parent is correct) there is only one planetary system: The Solar System.

    6. Re:Can't be a planet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's still a typo, you asshole.

    7. Re:Can't be a planet by clonan · · Score: 1

      It's a typo from the source they pulled it from NOT the actual deffinition. Look into the papers describing the deffinition and you will find it is just right.

      Getting mad about a journalists typo seems like wasted effort to me.

    8. Re:Can't be a planet by The_Wilschon · · Score: 1

      Interestingly, IIRC, the barycenter of Jupiter and the Sun lies above the surface of the sun.

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
  16. You think ? by unity100 · · Score: 0, Troll

    who can stand against the power of astronomers ?

    pluto was not able to defy reclassification as 'not planet' after a few hundred years.

    a commission of astronomers may rule it back to being a planet 5-10 years later.

    you know what ? f@ck astronomers. ill teach my kids that pluto is a planet.

    1. Re:You think ? by amilham · · Score: 3, Funny

      pluto was not able to defy reclassification as 'not planet' after a few hundred years.
      Except that Pluto wasn't even discovered until 1930. Not really 'a few hundred years'.
    2. Re:You think ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But Pluto was discovered by an American, dammit!

      Pluto is the only planet discovered by an American.

      There's simply no way we can give it up.

      That'd be like asking the Brits to finally concede that the orbit calculated for Neptune by John Couch Adams was nowhere near correct and the credit goes solely to Frenchman, Urbain Le Verrier, who calculated the correct orbit and did so before Adams!

      Not. Gonna. Happen. Ever.

    3. Re:You think ? by aadvancedGIR · · Score: 1

      The problem that Pluto had that led to its demotion is that it has nothing special, it one in many bodies that exists beyond the gas giants, and the only thing that makes it particular is that it was found long before the others because it gave away its position by interfering with the orbit of a planet.

      On a strictly technical point of view, it is mostly a large chunk of ice that has a non-circular orbit outside of the planets orbital plan, so calling it a dwarf planet is a polite way of not calling it a large comet.

  17. Indianna Jones and the Platinum Planet!!! by Zarf · · Score: 2, Funny

    Woo! That movie is gonna be awesome!

    --
    [signature]
    1. Re:Indianna Jones and the Platinum Planet!!! by kalirion · · Score: 1

      You mean Space Indiana Jones and the Platinum Planet.

    2. Re:Indianna Jones and the Platinum Planet!!! by Zarf · · Score: 1

      You mean Space Indiana Jones and the Platinum Planet. Well after "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" I think you don't need the word "Space" it's a given now.
      --
      [signature]
  18. Feh... by msauve · · Score: 3, Funny

    it's just a Nibblonian latrine.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  19. Obviously, it's... by naz404 · · Score: 3, Funny

    YO MOMMA!

    cuz yo mommma so fat, she got two smaller mommas orbiting around her!

  20. Just don't by Mr00000 · · Score: 1

    fire missiles at it. You gotta remember that evil begets evil. That thing will fuck up your ship.

  21. Text Excerpt from the Interview by Fieryphoenix · · Score: 2, Funny

    Geraldo Springer: I must insist you answer me! Are you a planet, or a star?
    [sputters]

    Unclassified Object: I may be a star... perhaps.
    [lays pinky finger to corner of mouth]
    Or am I a planet?
    [simpers]
    Or maybe, just maybe
    [faces away from camera, drops pants, bends over]
    I AM A MOON!

  22. Detection of home world by pgfuller · · Score: 1

    So, you have detected the home planet Eddore. Destruction of your paltry rock world will begin shortly.

    1. Re:Detection of home world by curmudgeous · · Score: 1

      Not if the Arisians have anything to say about it.

  23. Irony by Codex_of_Wisdom · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Didn't the IAU just "figure out" the definitions of stars and planets? Are we going to have another year long line of BS talks and arguments, ending in a bad definition that rewrites every science book and generally gives everyone a headache? I hope not...

  24. FSA? by 4D6963 · · Score: 2, Funny

    The French Space Agency? That's funny, I'm French and I didn't even know we had that. Don't they mean European rather than French?

    --
    You just got troll'd!
    1. Re:FSA? by Celandine · · Score: 3, Informative

      No. The French, Italians, Dutch etc all have their own space agencies in addition to ESA. (However I have never seen the acronym FSA used for the French one: it's the CNES, the Centre National d'Etudes spatiales.)

    2. Re:FSA? by Exaton · · Score: 1

      I had the exact same reaction.

      As Wikipedia soon indicated, however, and as the brother post has mentioned, the summary is referring to the CNES :)

    3. Re:FSA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      maybe CNES sounds better ?

    4. Re:FSA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The French Space Agency? That's funny, I'm French and I didn't even know we had that. Don't they mean European rather than French? No it is french: it is the CNES (Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales).
      The COROT has been designed by a french team and launched by Soyouz end 2006.
      http://www.cnes.fr/web/652-corot.php (french website)

      And now, some jokes about Anonymous Cowards, and the french posts.
    5. Re:FSA? by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

      The Dutch have their own space agency? Makes you wonder how their rockets must do to get high.

      --
      You just got troll'd!
  25. Are its dimensions by Akita24 · · Score: 1

    1 x 4 x 9?

  26. Perhaps.. just perhaps.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's the next evolutionary step of a planet. All things evolve, so why can't planets?

    Perhaps I've just read Star Maker too much =/

  27. old news. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rosie O'Donnell was discovered years ago.

  28. Re: A Shatner Object by FurtiveGlancer · · Score: 1

    It's large, very dense and overly dramatic in it's introduction. Yup, that's a Shatner object.

    --
    Invenio via vel creo
  29. lets face it by unity100 · · Score: 1

    that classifications we maintain for comets, planets, gas giants are entirely our own invention, and can change upon whim. 'declassification' of pluto just proved that.

    its rather meaningless. if pluto had atmosphere, would i be able to live on it ? if thats so, i call it a planet. and noone can change my mind.

  30. Surprised? by MeiliD · · Score: 1

    I sometimes find it funny when scientists are surprised at something new that defies their logic. We live in a huge [poor word] existence [since we don't know how big and current words may not be enough]. I'm excited myself to the new discoveries that will continue to take place. I only wish I could live longer to see some of the major changes that I think will take place after a couple of centuries [if we still exist].

  31. Strange story, it's ofc a planet by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

    Does it fuse? No? Then it is not a sun, or?
    Ergo it is a planet!!

    No idea why anyone claims the object could not be categorized.
    Did you ever notice that the planets closer to the sun are mainly rock/metal and the ones farer away are mainly gas/ice?
    So if you have an exo planet very close to his sun it will likely be a rocky planet (for various reasons beyond a short answer here), if it is a heavy rocky planet it will be likely smaller than a similar heavy gas planet.

    As the planet is mainly rock/metal it CAN'T even fuse if it is 10 or 20 times more heavy!! So it can't be classified as a brown dwarf either.

    angel'o'sphere

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  32. Simple! by Mr+Z · · Score: 1

    It's inside out.