__________________
'The eye can only see what the mind is prepared to accept'

great, so its larger than Sedna

will they call this one a planet ?

I would say it depends on the actual size of the thing. If it's much larger than Pluto, then it might be called a planet. If it's smaller, I'd say it won't be.

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

And here I thought we had found a jump gate left by the Vorlons.

Kizarvexis

__________________
"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary." - James D. Nicoll

__________________
If this writing is blue you're going too fast!

Even if is bigger than Pluto, it shouldn't be called a planet if it wasn't formed through the same process the other 8 planets underwent

Very cool. However, I predict that the Planet X types are going to have fun with this. :roll:

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009

Nah --- this is actual science. Planet X types wouldn't bother with it....

PX types dont mind using real science, as long as somebody else does it and as long as they can warp the science enough to make their claims seem to fit. Besides, they can't tell the difference between real and woo-woo anyway, so its fair game for them.

__________________
Yo Adrian. The Phillies won the Series.

My opinion is that nothing will ever be discovered that will be classified as another planet in our solar system. I think that if something were to be found out there and *confirmed* to be larger than Pluto, then it would cause finally the declassification of Pluto as a planet, and it will be added into the group of these Trans-Neptunian Objects. That's not necessarily what I want, (for Pluto to become not a planet), but just what I think would happen. At the moment, at least! :wink:

What's the difference between Trans-Neptunian Objects and Kuiper Belt Objects? In the article, the new discovery was called both--or at least a TNO and a "world in the Kuiper belt of rocky objects." Is there a specific definition of each, and any object found has to be either one or the other, or do the categories blend together>

if it were made of ice and grit then it would have a surface gravity of about 0.2g wouldn't it?

[edit]- no sorry, it would be 0.02g[/edit]

As best I can tell, TNO is a more precise observational description. These are sometimes subdivided based on presumed orbital history (scattered-disk objects, etc.). However, they would broadly qualify as Kuiper (or Edgeworth, or Kuiper-Edgeworth) belt objects as long as they aren't beyond the extent of the belt as traced by big objects (which is why Sedna was such big news).

This says it's smaller than Pluto; only 30% the mass, but may have a moon.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ge_object.html

Dumb question here but I am going to ask anyway. I didn't buy into all the planet x stuff and was satisfied with the explanation that if there WAS something there we could tell by the effects it's gravity would have on other objects.

So my question is this. Why wasn't this discovered before by determining that there was something out there perturbing other objects?

__________________
The More I learn, The More Ignorant I Become

Eagle Eye Observatory

see new topic...under Planet X...

http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=23316

New Scientist: New solar system world has a moon and here showing the moon

It seems odd that they refuse to admit there is more than 9 planets when there are bigger moons than Pluto, so either Pluto isn't a planet or we have significantly more planets that orbit each other. Its like the creationists insisting that some of our ancestors are human when they have 1/2 the brain size and some aren't and then even they can't fully decide on what is what.

Surely we should set a limit on the actual gravity of the object to define it as a planet, 1m/s/s would still allow some moons to be planets but exclude Pluto, but 0.5m/s/s will almost definitely add some objects in, some that could possibly be far smaller than Pluto.

Maybe we should classify them by size. Anything with gravity over 1m/s/s is a planet, anything under 1m/s/s but still with measurable gravity is a planetoid / dead protoplanet / minor planet and anything with negligible gravity as a planetesimal leaving anything that could be smaller as simply gasses.

It's too small, so the effects aren't noticable. In fact, Pluto is too small to account for the perturbations in Neptune's orbit that led to its discovery, and it was later noted that the measurements themselves were actually what was in error. The "Planet X" proposed by those who think it's going to swoop in and destroy Earth is much larger. It is theoretically possible that there is a large, planet-sized object in the solar system that's far enough away that it isn't detectable, just not one that behaves like the various Planet X believers suggest.

Also Pluto has an orbit period of 90,000+ days, which means the more distant the objects orbit the longer it takes to move, the less light it gets to reflect and it won't appear to move much in the sky anyway. So finding them might be a task for when we're actually out there and looking.

This is cool. Maybe big objects like this out past Neptune can all be called Plutos instead of the more cumbersom TNO. The original Pluto could be Pluto system 1A/B and the new one could be Pluto 2 or 2A/B depending on how big the moon is. I don't think they should be called planets in the classical sense, unless it is modified to be "ice-planet". I'm all for calling certain moon planets, but by reference as "planetary moon" or something like that. Of course, I'd be interested in seeing Ceres called a planet too.

__________________
"Oh no no no I'm a rocket man Rocket man burning out his fuse up here alone." -- Sir Elton John

J Pax