It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Number of Planets possibly up to 12.

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 06:08 AM
link   
This is really cool.

Essentially, with a new concept of what constitutes a planet, UB313, Pluto, it's moon CHaron, and the largest asteroid Ceres would make 12 in total.

news.bbc.co.uk...

The proposal recognises eight classical planets, three planets belonging to a new category called "plutons" and the largest asteroid Ceres.

Pluto remains a planet, but becomes the basis for the new pluton category.

The plan has been drawn up by the International Astronomical Union (IAU) with the aim of settling the question of what does and does not count as a planet.

Some 2,500 astronomers gathered at the IAU General Assembly in Prague will vote on the plan next Thursday.


One interesting thing I thought I'd bring up however. Didn't the ancient Sumerians believe that there were 12 planets? Even if we don't end up thinking of the Plutons as planets, maybe they did. That would be an amazing coincidence.




posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 06:18 AM
link   
UB313. Was known as Planet X... Do you think they chould call it after someone? This "Planet" has oval shaped Orbit? from sources I've read? it goes closer to the sun than Uranus, Neptune and Pluto every cuple of hundred years?



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 06:26 AM
link   
No, UB313 never gets that close. It's actually something like 3 times as far as Pluto. It doesn't necesarily fit with the Nibiru claim either. It makes me wonder if the Sumerians heard the story from someone else, but got the specifics wrong.



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 08:29 AM
link   
An interesting thing to note is that Ceres is much smaller than our own moon. I guess the Plutons are an entire classification unto themselves that must not be another planet's moon.

According to the Sitchin theory, Luna is also considered a planet. This theory is of course a long way from being proven, and the idea of Nibiru has also all but been disproven.



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 08:37 AM
link   
This makes sense. Anyone who looks at a diagram of the solar system can see there's something pretty wierd going on with Pluto. Its orbital plane is at 30 degrees to the rest of the solar system.

I think they have the designation pretty much correct now.



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
One interesting thing I thought I'd bring up however. Didn't the ancient Sumerians believe that there were 12 planets?

No, that was a myth put out by the Planet X hysterics. You remember Planet X -- it roared past Earth in 2003, changed our orbit, flipped the plannet, caused the poles to change places, covered the Earth in red dust, and hung in the sky over Earth like a huge evil eye for years (yes, that's the nonsense they spouted.)

It was "supported" by Graham Hancock, who based HIS ramblings off a Sumerian seal with 12 stars on it.

The Sumerians, however, left behind lots of tables of planetary movement (and they're in a number of museums.) You can see them for yourself, and if you learn to read a little cuneiform (or if you trust the museum translations) you will see that the Sumerians named and tracked only the 7 visible planets.


Even if we don't end up thinking of the Plutons as planets, maybe they did. That would be an amazing coincidence.


Alas, just an amazing fraud that's being perpetrated on the public to sell books full of bad science and worse speculation.



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 09:00 AM
link   
That's very sad. Thanks for clearing that up Byrd.


Even still, the concept of increasing the number of objects in the solar system that are likely to be talked about in school is great. I didn't learn of Ceres's existance until high school, but I had the planets memorized in first grade. If we can classify these objects, and make them familiar, it would do wonders for real science. It may at least make more people interested.



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 09:16 AM
link   
I’m a firm believer of the Keep It Simple, Stupid (KISS) line of thought, and adding more planets and adopting this far reaching definition seems like a bad idea to me. Under this new definition there are 50+ (perhaps hundreds) of solar bodies which would qualify for planet status, sorry but that’s just ridicules. Remove Pluto and leave us with the 8 classical planets, and all the other objects under consideration should be classified as "small solar bodies", not quite a planet but also not an asteroid or comet. There should be a new definition of what a planet is, one that raises the size standard and that include more factors such as orbit, gravitational pull, distance, composition etc… This proposal now is just absurd.

[edit on 16-8-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 09:21 AM
link   
Looks like a new acronym needs to be thought up... So much for the good ole days of "My Very Elegant Mother Just Served Us Nine Pizzas."

New possibilities?
More Varocious Elephants May Cause Jubilant Serpents Underneath New Poisonous Cacti Univeristies
Magical Vikings Eat More Cucumbers Juggling Sharp Umbrellas Now Per Creative Undertones
Mathematical Variations Errantly Muck Calculations Just Surely Unless Preemptive Cautions Undertaken

EDIT TO ADD A MORE SERIOUS NOTE:

I didn't see the actual definition in the article provided, though I may have missed it. Either way, here it is...


Space.com

"A planet is a celestial body that (a) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (b) is in orbit around a star, and is neither a star nor a satellite of a planet."


So, most moons would not qualify as the new class of dwarf planets, despite having the size. For example, Luna orbits Earth and is not fully tidally locked, so it wouldn't qualify, despite the size. The moons Ganymeade and Titan, while both larger than Mercury, are orbiting other Jupiter and Saturn, respectively, so, again, while having the size qualification do not fall under the dwarf planet class either.

Of course, it would have 13, as the KBO 2005 FY9 is anywhere from a diameter of 1660-3000 km, which would be larger than both 2003 UB313 and Pluto. Though, maybe since a more exacting size hasn't been established they have not included it.

Also, there could be 14, because the specifications for "nearly round" really isn't all that exacting. My point comes in to 2003 EL61. It has a rather rounded football (American) shape to it, but not exactly round. Should it be a dwarf planet? I would think so.

Finally, we're left with (in decending order from largest to smallest): Sedna, Orcus, Quaoar, Ixion, 2002 UX25, Varuna, 2004 XR190, 2002 AW197, 1999 TL66, Chaos, Huya, and Hygiea. All of those listed orbit the Sun and are "nearly round."

That's 26 planets - 8 being classical, the rest being dwarfs. Imagine how many more will be discovered in the next few years?

[edit on 8/16/2006 by cmdrkeenkid]



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 10:07 AM
link   
Most ventrilaquists eat meaty cheese just so ugly norwegian people can undulate.


Westpoint, I think anything that can bring peoples attention to astronomical bodies is a good idea. I think of how few people know the names of asteroids and comets, and am excited to see a category that has few enough members that people can remember the names, and hopefully with names easy enough for kids to remember.



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 10:17 AM
link   
I actually think it will put people off; you go from 9 planets to perhaps 50 in a few years? Way to radical a change, and personally I don’t consider Pluto a planet to me its more like a comet, so this wont matter but I do feel sorry for the next generation school children who might have to memorize dozens of "planets".



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 11:03 AM
link   
Pluto and the other large KBO have really nothing in common with comets, so thinking of them as similar isn't really correct.

I think that what the IAU is getting at is having the eight planets before a practical purpose. As far as science goes, we'll have the eight classical, the myriads of dwarf planets, and then the even more numerous minor planets. Minor planets have been classified as so for years, consisting of the asteroids (prior to today Ceres was a minor planet), comets, and other small bodies out there in the Solar System.



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 11:44 AM
link   
I like the new classification because it classifies Pluto better. I also didn’t think it matched the classic definition of a planet, so instead they create a new class. Then I was wondering how Charon, Pluto’s moon was considered a planet, and read this.


Planet Charon?
Under the new plan, Charon, regarded as Pluto's moon since its 1978 discovery, becomes a planet itself. Charon is so large relative to Pluto that the pair's center of mass lies between the two worlds. For this reason, astronomers frequently refer to Pluto and its outsize satellite as a "double planet." If approved, the new definition would formalize this idea.

www.astronomy.com...


So it sounds like they are not done coming up with new classifications.

Before the conference I heard they were considering the following classifications: Terrestrial Planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars), then Jovial Planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune), and the remaining bodies would be considered “Dwarf Planets”. Not sure where I read this, but I think they are not done with new classifications, so it may get even more complicated.



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Hal9000, I think that you found it here.



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
Hal9000, I think that you found it here.


Yep, that's where I saw it. Thanks for that.



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
One interesting thing I thought I'd bring up however. Didn't the ancient Sumerians believe that there were 12 planets?

No, that was a myth put out by the Planet X hysterics. You remember Planet X -- it roared past Earth in 2003, changed our orbit, flipped the plannet, caused the poles to change places, covered the Earth in red dust, and hung in the sky over Earth like a huge evil eye for years (yes, that's the nonsense they spouted.)

It was "supported" by Graham Hancock, who based HIS ramblings off a Sumerian seal with 12 stars on it.

The Sumerians, however, left behind lots of tables of planetary movement (and they're in a number of museums.) You can see them for yourself, and if you learn to read a little cuneiform (or if you trust the museum translations) you will see that the Sumerians named and tracked only the 7 visible planets.


Even if we don't end up thinking of the Plutons as planets, maybe they did. That would be an amazing coincidence.


Alas, just an amazing fraud that's being perpetrated on the public to sell books full of bad science and worse speculation.


Actually it is impossible to actually tell what the Sumerians were thinking... maybe they were taking track of solar systems rather than planets or maybe it was galaxies.

You can't really tell unless you are a Sumerian, because everything you gather is up to your own interpretation.



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 10:17 PM
link   
Timeseer, you obviously know nothing (or at least very little) about modern anthropology and archaeology. On top of that, judging by the fact that you hypothesize that they could have been tracking other solar systems or galaxies, you probably don't know too much about astronomy either.

I'll leave the anthropology and archaelogy bits for Byrd, as she is the resident ATS Genius (TM) on those topics, but I'll be more than glad to help you out on the astronomy bit.

Like most ancient cultures, the Sumarians relied greatly upon the Heavens. They told them thier fate, when to plant and harvest crops, of the future, and generally provided the basis for the majority of thier religions and myths.

Now, they couldn't have been tracking other solar systems. Mainly, because the first extrasolar planet wasn't discovered until the late 1980s. We just couldn't detect them before then, and only within the past year have we had actual visible detection of one. Previously, they were detected by shifts in the light of planets star(s) or the apparant wooble of the star(s) due to gravity. So, how could the Sumarians have seen planets that we've only begun to discover today?

Also, the term galaxy is relativly new. It wasn't coined until about 150 years ago. About 300 years before that, we didn't even know of galaxies. The majority are too faint to see with the naked eye, and when they could see them in the darker skies of the past they were simply blurry looking stars. Before about 150 years ago, once telescopes and optical systems had developed more, people just believed that they were "island solar systems," similar to what ours would have looked like if viewed from the outside.

On top of that, galaxies have billions upon billions of stars. So, even if they could have seen individual stars millions of millions of lightyears distant, why would they only track a few?

So no, the poor logic and gaps in your hypothesis are its downfall. It's pretty safe to say that the Sumerians were tracking what was going on in our own Solar System. If not from that, but then because the recorded dates and times of events (such as eclipses, occulations of prominent objects by the Moon, or transits of the Sun by the inner planets check out when back dated from today.



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
Timeseer, you obviously know nothing (or at least very little) about modern anthropology and archaeology.


You know nothing about anything if you cannot accept the fact that all evidence is situated and defined by your own interpretation.


Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
On top of that, judging by the fact that you hypothesize that they could have been tracking other solar systems or galaxies, you probably don't know too much about astronomy either.


You don't know me so very well, now do yee?



Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
I'll leave the anthropology and archaelogy bits for Byrd, as she is the resident ATS Genius (TM)


Most people call that flattery. And it is just your opinion if Byrd is a genius, just as it is your opinion that I know nothing about anthropology, archealogy, and astronomy.


Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
on those topics, but I'll be more than glad to help you out on the astronomy bit.


Ask me any astronomical question you can think of. Come on...


Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
Like most ancient cultures, the Sumarians relied greatly upon the Heavens. They told them thier fate



Wrong...



Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
when to plant and harvest crops, of the future, and generally provided the basis for the majority of thier religions and myths.



wrong...


Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
Now, they couldn't have been tracking other solar systems. Mainly, because the first extrasolar planet wasn't discovered until the late 1980s.


Wrong... Humanly or presently discovered in human terms...




Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
We just couldn't detect them before then, and only within the past year have we had actual visible detection of one.


You fail to understand the Sumerians. Who's to say they were the ones writing down that information.


Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
Previously, they were detected by shifts in the light of planets star(s) or the apparant wooble of the star(s) due to gravity. So, how could the Sumarians have seen planets that we've only begun to discover today?


Why did the egyptians invented lightbulbs a thousand or so years before Americans? Why did Leonardo made a perfect wooden robot? There is a WHOLE LOT you don't know that you are pretending to know.

By the way the Egyptians did had something very similar to a lightbulb that they had used, which might had been invented by extraterrestrials and not really the Egyptians.


Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
Also, the term galaxy is relativly new. It wasn't coined until about 150 years ago. About 300 years before that, we didn't even know of galaxies. The majority are too faint to see with the naked eye, and when they could see them in the darker skies of the past they were simply blurry looking stars. Before about 150 years ago, once telescopes and optical systems had developed more, people just believed that they were "island solar systems," similar to what ours would have looked like if viewed from the outside.


You are failing to understand what I had said.


Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
On top of that, galaxies have billions upon billions of stars. So, even if they could have seen individual stars millions of millions of lightyears distant, why would they only track a few?


You are still failing to understand what I had said.


Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
So no, the poor logic and gaps in your hypothesis are its downfall.


Don't you mean the poor quality of your interpretation on my statement falls short from what I was actually talking about?

[edit on 16-8-2006 by Timeseer]



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Timeseer
Actually it is impossible to actually tell what the Sumerians were thinking... maybe they were taking track of solar systems rather than planets or maybe it was galaxies.

You can't really tell unless you are a Sumerian, because everything you gather is up to your own interpretation.

Well, they left thousands and thousands of tablets of writing and they were very interested in astronomy. They named things and had the first astrologers (not astronomers... they had those as well) who told fortunes from stars.

We have a number of those translated.

I should also point out that Hancock and Sitchin showed only PART of the seal (and part of their evidence)... they left out the text, which talked about what was on the artifact.

But let's get back to the topic:

I like the idea of "Plutons." I think it's a nice compromise.

[edit on 16-8-2006 by Byrd]



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by Timeseer
Actually it is impossible to actually tell what the Sumerians were thinking... maybe they were taking track of solar systems rather than planets or maybe it was galaxies.

You can't really tell unless you are a Sumerian, because everything you gather is up to your own interpretation.

Well, they left thousands and thousands of tablets of writing and they were very interested in astronomy. They named things and had the first astrologers (not astronomers... they had those as well) who told fortunes from stars.

We have a number of those translated.

I should also point out that Hancock and Sitchin showed only PART of the seal (and part of their evidence)... they left out the text, which talked about what was on the artifact.

But let's get back to the topic:

I like the idea of "Plutons." I think it's a nice compromise.

[edit on 16-8-2006 by Byrd]


Well what I'm saying is that you cannot very well tell what they say as evidence is always up for grabs for one's interpretation.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join