Astronomers propose 12 planets!

Interesting article here-

www.msnbc.msn.com...

Was hoping to get some comments from those more researched in ancient summeria as I've often heard of the twelve planets in relation to their astronomical
understanding. How would this change our interpretation? Of course the definition of the word planet is the issue and ancient astonomers may not hold to the same definition. So would this muddy the waters or be of any significance? Sorry if the alien connection is vague for some, just looking for some insight.

There is another thread about it here in space exploration.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

There was also another thread in science and technology about re-classifying Pluto as part of the Kupier Belt objects instead of a planet. Ill try and find it.

A few days ago on the news they said that Pluto was being de-classified as a planet, now they are keeping it as a planet and adding two more, what's up?

I like the way these top knotch Scientist think. The man was asked, how do you define a planet and he said, after they thought about it they all agreed to "anything that was round"

I can only imagine hearing complaints of school kids now "you mean we have to learn 3 extra planet names? oh come on." Seems like we're splitting hairs with the definition of a planet. Move a planet so that it orbits say Jupiter or Saturn and then it can be as big or bigger than the Earth but yet not be a planet. My last comment for now about adding 3 new planets to our solar system list, they need to change the name of the last one.

Originally posted by orionthehunter
I can only imagine hearing complaints of school kids now "you mean we have to learn 3 extra planet names? oh come on." Seems like we're splitting hairs with the definition of a planet. Move a planet so that it orbits say Jupiter or Saturn and then it can be as big or bigger than the Earth but yet not be a planet. My last comment for now about adding 3 new planets to our solar system list, they need to change the name of the last one.

Xena might be Nibiru or one of it's moons. Well the physical details of the Annunaki women isn't as different from that of Xena the Warrior Princess, except they are taller and have grey skin and a few other "minor" details.

IMHO this is really absolute and total Bull Crap!!!!

Most of my fellow cube mates at work are wondering why would I be so pissed - but this is the heart of it - they have frickkin' compromised serious science for social and monetary gain!

Socially they have succumb to the pressure to keep Pluto an important object, while at the same time they have sold us out for the prospect of extra funding and projects.

What's so very sad about all this - in an age of surprising scientific illiteracy - is that they blew this very public opportunity to show science at it's best - and how it can be properly used to fine tune our knowledge and understanding of complex phenomena in the universe.

Demoting Pluto would have sent the message that science was not dogmatic - but rather dynamic - and that persuing good science (and scientific method) was a journey filled with wonder, progress, and adventure.

Instead they have just proven that yet another "so called" scientific institution is still subject to the same social manipulation and corruption as readily seen in any Human government.

This is the same road the AMA followed in the U.S. a long time ago, making them an ineffectual and even dangerous organization.

When will we finally learn to take a different road for our future generations?

I have to say, I am one to criticize the limitations of science as an institution, but I am a little bt perplexed by the theory that this is a money/based proposal.

NASA can't even get enough money to visit all of the planets we already have. Adding more is going to change the public desire for More Pirates of the Carribean and less research into Pirate Archaeology. More ET and less R&D...., etc, etc.

Personally, I would be happy for them to either call Pluto no longer a planet, or come up with a more property-based definition of planet. So long as they pick one and stick to it, and not leave things as sadly innappropriate at they are.

I say, the more we change definitions the better. As that means our perspective is growing at a healthy pace.

But I sure wouldn't want to be in this debate. I mean, trying to get a society of scientists to agree on a definition... try getting 5 scientists to do that!

I mean, seriously, Pluto and Charon are small co-orbiting bodies on a highly eccentric and ecliptic solar orbit.

I saw a debate on TV last night where a museum guy debated another guy in a really nasty cat fight about this. The funniest part was where the museum guy said that we should really apply our vast knowledge about how our solar system formed to this definition, rather than a definition based on observational properties. I nearly laughed out loud. Our vast knowledge? Hubris, hubris is a museum....

Right now is precisely the WRONG time to assert we know about solar systems. We are just beginning to observe other solar system planetary bodies from earth. Wait till we get spectrographic readings back from other solar system planets... An astronomer once told me that that should happen around 2010 or 2020 when we get the adaptive optics up to snuff. See, within a few arc seconds atmospheric distortion is correlated so..... and then I get my spectrographic readings on the moon (John).....

Which reminds me, to bring this back to the UFO issue...

The real question is, does John Lear believe Xerces, Xena, and Charon have atmospheres and people on/in them? THAT, my friends, is the fundamental scientific question that needs to be addressed about the definition of planets. At least, on this forum!



[edit on 17-8-2006 by Ectoterrestrial]

Ecto,

Yes, well to be honest - imho NASA does all it can to discredit itself in public - specifically so that it Can have it's budget curtailied - at least its "known" budget.

However as to where the money comes in - this comes down to Qui Bono.

And it is the Astronomers who can now parlay this into all sorts of academic or private projects to categorize (and presumably name) all the "plutons" they can.

By doing this they will insure that they are in many cases full funded to do this "important" new work.

Be assured - that eventually - they will be very likely to change their minds an downgrade "plutons' into mere planetoids - once that cash cow is fully milked.

No one is really going to expect the public to accept that our solar system is made of 40 or more "planets".

In any case - just another sad footnote in the history of science - and just another missed opportunity to really educate the unwashed masses.