Unless I am particularly dimwitted tonight (entirely possible ;-) ), I count 10, 8 if Pluto-Charon and Sedna are not counted as 'planets'. I tend to ascribe to the 8 planet crowd as it gets a little ridiculous if every pebble is counted as a planet. Pluto and Charon are close enough in mass that it really is just a pair of planetoids circling a shared point rather than a true orbit, which is why some scientists refer to it as "Pluto-Charon".
If you start counting random rocks, when do large asteroids in the asteroid belt get planetary status? Or, for that matter, when do you start talking about Earth's separate "moon" (yes, we have one).
That being said, I agree with the original poster that an eleventh "planet-like-thing" will probably be found. For that matter, an eighteenth will probably be found someday.
It doesn't matter how many planets are in our solar system, as Earth is the only one known for definate to sustain and contain life. The only good thing the other planets could serve is rich resources required for deep space travel, but with the government holding back, that is not likely in the foreseable future.I believe that Pluto-Chiron to be classed as one planet, as Earth and the moon are. If we were to colonize the moon, would it become a planet? I therefore believe that there are 9 planets. I have not heard of Sedna, or is it Planet X with a name?
guy, the number of planets in the solar system may not matter to you, but it certainly matters to astronomers.As for the goverment holding back, which government are you talking about? The U.S. government [NASA] recently came out with new plans for moon and Mars missions.
Apparantly they have found quite a lot of smaller, planet-like pieces of space rock. This is why scientists are debating about whether Pluto can be counted anymore as a planet. Personally I think that's rude to Pluto because It's been a planet for ages!
Pluto should remain a planet as is. It should stay as the 9th one, and Charion or whatever can stay as it is since the time it was handled. I believe this 10th planet should also be named after a roman god too, or else one depicting one if possible. I wouldn't want to lose Pluto just because it's changed over the many years, I rather have it this way unless the circumstances really do differ. If it does differ over the generations, then I guess all there is to it is to change the list around, which we all would hate to do Anyways, 10th, 11th, or 200th planet, I'd like to know more about each planet whenever they are announced.
You just don't want to learn a new pnemonic, eh, broli?
Mr Vincent Eats Marmite & Jam Sandwiches Under Nathan's Piano. (Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune & Pluto). I think it is easier to remember the actual order of the planet's names, rather than the pnemonic. But that is just me.
Personally, if I have to listen or make another pnemonic, I will shoot myself.
In 1997 the International Astronomical Society (IAS, the governing body of Astronomy and objects in space) met to discuss the "Is Pluto a planet" problem.They declared that Pluto would be included as a planet no matter what and now they are meeting to discuss the future of Xena (2003 UB 313) and other Kupier Belt Objects and if any of them can be called planets.The term planet does not have an official definition and, depending on what you look up, there are anything from the 6 'original' planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn, as discovered by the ancient Greeks) to 100's of asteriods, comets, planetiods, moons, etc. (Any heavenly body that gives off light).So you see, there will be nine planets in the Solar System until September when the IAS declares what a planet is when there might be 10, 11, 12 or still 9.Large Planetoids: - Xena - Quoaor - SednaThere are more but I can't remember them all.
purely semantics. the definition of planet is pretty pointless, at least in the context of space exploration and colonization. we define mercury mars venus and earth as planets. i can see this. they are all spheroid. they all have rock and circle the sun. notwithstanding technological limitations, one could imagine living in mars or any of the other planets (provided we can contain the temperature/atmosphere problem). so why are gas giants considered planets? many of them are considered failed stars. what do they have in common with rocky planets? how useful are they to space colonization? pluto, to me, would be a much more viable planet than jupiter...
Yeah, but obviously in the case of the Earth and moon, the Earth is quite a bit larger than the moon. Charon is around half the size of Pluto, so a lot of people consider them like the stars that revolve around each other. They think that Charon revolves around Pluto as much as Pluto revolves around Charon. The Earth is different as it obviously does not revolve around the moon while the moon is also revolving around the Earth.
I believe that Pluto-Chiron to be classed as one planet, as Earth and the moon are. If we were to colonize the moon, would it become a planet? I therefore believe that there are 9 planets. I have not heard of Sedna, or is it Planet X with a name?
Certainly, if we argue over semantics, any discussion quickly becomes pointless. I was simply trying to question how astronomists define other worlds; and if these criteria really generate something meaningful. If size were the simplest criterion to something being a planet, then large 'moons' that circle gas objects like Jupiter should be considered planets as some of them are pretty big. but somehow this is not a sufficient definition. so a planet must be large and orbiting a star. but why? Why should an orbit around a star have anything to do with an object's categorization of being a planet? I can't seem to find any physical constraints to a satellite, orbiting a gas giant, actually developing life. While these questions may sound meaningless to some... please don't forget that much of how new planets are being found today require that it is orbiting a star. How foolish would it be if all along, there are countless examples of 'satellites' harboring life?
Uhm yes, I'm sure there are more than ten planets in our solar system, they're just so far out there that it's hard for us to see them. But really, what was the point of you making this topic? You don't even seem to have anything intelligent to say.
Um...now there is 1 less planet. Which wasn't really a planet.Pluto wasn't a planet, now everything related to planets need to be changed!
I'm sorry for being so stupid, but what is the Kuiper Belt? LOL Just like clagnol said...
That is hilarious!! No, no... how is Zeus-X10 or something like that, hmm?? Hahahhaa!!! "Tenth Planet found!" like every two years... but I've heard of this every os often. But anyway, that's cool...
Is it just me or do we see headlines that exclaim "Tenth Planet found!" like every two years? How many tenth planets have we actually found? To add to the confusion, some of them are given names like 2003 UB313. C'mon astronomers, how about another Roman god? I think we're due for a Bacchus.
I wonder what they're going to name it after this "temporary time period"... lol Zeus-X10!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Mwahaha...
But what in the world? There's going to be like the 11th planet? Aren't they like those really small comets/satellites that go around the sun in a HUGE range?? It's just hilarious how people try to prove something... or spend so much money just trying to discover a "planet" which is not a "planet". Weird.
There's only 8 planets now,but there's new catagorey called plutons and pluto and the 3 other dorph planets we found are now catagorized as plutons.I herd about it in the news and the paper.OMG new textbooks LOL!!!