SCI/TECH: NASA Reveals That New Object Sedna Is Almost a Planet, But Not Quite

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Mar, 15 2004 @ 08:06 AM
link   
NASA has discovered an object in our solar system that is 3 billion miles further out than Pluto. Sedna, officially named 2003VB12, was found on Nov. 14, 2003 with the Samuel Oschin Telescope near San Diego, California. Mike Brown, an astronomer at the California Institute of Technology, said he "did not consider the object to be a planet in the same way Pluto is not a planet." He believes that planets should have more mass. Sedna is thought to be slightly smaller than Pluto at 800 - 1,100 miles in diameter, and has a 10,000-year orbit that takes it 84 billion miles away from the sun.
 

NASA
Sedna is not a planet, but it is the largest object found in our solar system since Pluto was discovered 74 years ago.


Sedna was discovered in a series of photographs taken with the Samuel Oschin Telescope over a 3-hour period. The astronomers noticed that an object in the photograph was moving slowly across the frame, at a rate slower than any other object in the solar system. Distant stars remain stationary in the photographs while near objects move quickly. Since this was the slowest object that they had ever seen they realized that it was outside the Kuiper Belt, which was thought to be the edge of the solar system. Sedna is currently 3 billion miles from Pluto, and over 8 billion miles from the sun, but its elliptical 10,000-year orbit takes it as far away as 84 billion miles from the sun. Currently if you were standing on Sedna, the sun would appear so small that you could hold a pin at arms length, and it would block out the sun.

Photographs of Sedna have revealed that it is a red shiny planet, almost as red as mars. The shiny attributes are probably due to the planet being very icy. The current temperature on Sedna is approximately 400 degrees Fahrenheit. Sedna also appears to have a small satellite orbiting it. This will be verified very soon with the Hubble space telescope. Astronomers believe that they will find other objects like Sedna within the next 5 years. Some, may even be bigger than Sedna or Pluto.

Sadly, Sedna is so far away from the earth, that only professional astronomers will be able to see it. Mark Brown said that even the best amateur telescope would not be able to detect it, but if you were curious, it was visible to them just after sunset in the western sky. Sedna is named after the Inuit goddess of the icy arctic sea, since it is cold and icy.

Additional Sources:
Press Release Photos

Related ATS Discussions:
NASA Schedules News Briefing About Unusual Solar Object





[Edited on 17-3-2004 by SkepticOverlord]

[Edited on 17-3-2004 by SkepticOverlord]




posted on Mar, 15 2004 @ 08:22 AM
link   
Just posted a link on this one:

The world is called "Sedna" and it's got an orbital period of 10,500 years. That makes it the 11th "world"... it and Quaor are not as large as Pluto, and Pluto has always been somewhat of a controversy about whether it's massive enough to be counted as a Real Planet.

It does have enough mass to capture a moonlet, though.

story.news.yahoo.com.../ap/20040315/ap_on_sc/ice_world



posted on Mar, 15 2004 @ 08:44 AM
link   
SEDNA is ANDES spelled backwards!


some kinda Symbolic, Mystic, meaning here???

Inuit goddess of sea + distant entity sojourning in the
primordial sea (of deep space)?

Inca, high mountain retreats for the gods,(distant abodes in the rarified atmospheres *deep space*)??

YO...the next revelation may be that SEDNA is a lso
a 'shared planetoid' with the still undiscovered brown-dwarf which 'Sol' is in a cosmic dance with!!
(Most stars are binary!...check it out!)



posted on Mar, 15 2004 @ 12:58 PM
link   
It's also the name of the Inuit Sea Goddess....interesting as it's beyond Neptune and Pluto....
Personally, I've always gone with Pluto not really being a "planet" as far as the general definition goes.....



posted on Mar, 15 2004 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by riffraffalunas
YO...the next revelation may be that SEDNA is a lso
a 'shared planetoid' with the still undiscovered brown-dwarf which 'Sol' is in a cosmic dance with!!
(Most stars are binary!...check it out!)

They did mention a possible rogue star, but said that it would have been around very early in the history of the solar system.



posted on Mar, 15 2004 @ 03:34 PM
link   
I almost believe that scientists do not want to classify any new discoveries as planets because doing so would be like admitting that there are things going on that science does not know. If there is another "planet" in our solar system how could our high tech know everything science not already know about it? But if it is just a piece of rock, gas or ice, (which is pretty much the description of all planets) then science can miss that because it is not a big deal.



posted on Mar, 15 2004 @ 04:49 PM
link   
One reason for not getting planet status, beside the size, is the orbit path. All planets, except pluto, orbit in a circle and are on the same horizontal plane. Pluto is somewhat on the same plane, but the orbit is more elliptical. Sometimes it would be even closer in than Neptune. Sedna's orbit is way off base with what the rest of the planets orbits looks like, but if you go by what it looks like, personally I would call it a planet.
What I find interesting (riffraffalunas mentioned this earlier) is what keeps Sedna from flying off into space once it get to be 84 billion miles away? Does it orbit a matching star? Maybe someone with more knowledge in this area will share their thoughts.



posted on Mar, 15 2004 @ 06:30 PM
link   
The closest star that we know of is 4 lightyears away, so I doubt that that is a reason for it not flying off into space.


jra

posted on Mar, 15 2004 @ 06:37 PM
link   
zerotime: That doesn't make much sence. Scientists know they don't know everything. They don't hide that fact. Plus that wouldn't be the reason for not classifing this as a planet. It's too small. Smaller than our moon as you can see in the picture above.

Pluto was only discovered what.. 70 years ago? that's not too long ago. No one had a problem classifing it as a planet really, so i don't see why scientists would have problems doing it today if they found a planetiod big enough to call a planet.



posted on Mar, 15 2004 @ 11:13 PM
link   
jra: The egos of scientists rank right up there with professional athletes. Most (but not all) scientists believe that if they cannot figure something out then it must be impossible.

Why should size matter for classifying a planet? 1,300 Earths could fit into Jupiter. So if we lived on a planet the size of Jupiter a tiny planet the size of earth wouldnt count as a planet? Size is irrelevant in the infinite vastness of space.



posted on Mar, 15 2004 @ 11:43 PM
link   
Actually planets don't have circular orbits. They are all elliptical technically speaking. Description



The orbits of the planets are ellipses but the eccentricities are so small for most of the planets that they look circular at first glance. For most of the planets one must measure the geometry carefully to determine that they are not circles, but ellipses of small eccentricity. Pluto and Mercury are exceptions: their orbits are sufficiently eccentric that they can be seen by inspection to not be circles.


As for the definition of a planet, Oxford's definition says


one of the heavenly bodies moving around the sun.

To view the International Astronomical Union's statement on the definition of a planet, click HeRe.

I guess it's truly up to the individual to determine. Either way this is a big discovery and I hope it's true about even bigger finds in the future.



posted on Mar, 16 2004 @ 01:57 AM
link   
zerotime:

Science is about finding out new things. Scientists know only a fraction of all things there are to find out. If they already knew them all, I don't think there would be any point for man to exist.

Also, I have a book here that says the 10th planet, large enough to cause the odd orbits of some of the outer planets, would be almost impossible to find, due to the fact that it would be dark and cold. We can't just see somthing because it is big.



posted on Mar, 16 2004 @ 04:01 AM
link   


Science is about finding out new things. Scientists know only a fraction of all things there are to find out. If they already knew them all, I don't think there would be any point for man to exist.

I completely agree with that 100%. That is absolutely how science should be viewed.

I run Zerotime Paranormal. I have interviewed and talked with over 500 different types of scientists over the past 14 years and I am almost always frustrated by them. Getting a scientist to admit that something could be possible in the future that is currently not achievable is like pulling teeth.

Ill give you an exampleThe scientists of SETI do not believe in the possibility of Interstellar Travel They announce it in their online FAQ. Why? According to them there are just too many problems. Is that good science?

There are numerous problems with deep space travel but those SCIENTISTS believe that the human race is incapable of ever overcoming those complicated issues. It is true that we will probably never see interstellar travel in our lifetimes and our grandchildren will probably not see it in their lifetimes. However, what about people 500 or 1000 years from now? SETI (Large Group of Scientists) believe that even races millions of years more advanced then Earth could never figured out a way to travel across space. Anyone with a little common sense should be able to figure out that eventually the human race will figure out interstellar space travel. Look how far the human race is advanced in just the past 100 years and we have only been going into space for a little over 40 years. No one can imagine what the Earth will be like in another 100 years.

The SETI Institute works with NASA, the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, the US Geological Survey, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), the International Astronomical Union, the Pacific Science Center, the Foundation for Microbiology, Sun Microsystems and many more. They employ some of the brightest scientists, engineers, administrators, technicians, and educators and yet make very blatantly ignorant statements.



posted on Mar, 16 2004 @ 06:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by dbates
One reason for not getting planet status, beside the size, is the orbit path. All planets, except pluto, orbit in a circle and are on the same horizontal plane. Pluto is somewhat on the same plane, but the orbit is more elliptical. Sometimes it would be even closer in than Neptune. Sedna's orbit is way off base with what the rest of the planets orbits looks like, but if you go by what it looks like, personally I would call it a planet.
What I find interesting (riffraffalunas mentioned this earlier) is what keeps Sedna from flying off into space once it get to be 84 billion miles away? Does it orbit a matching star? Maybe someone with more knowledge in this area will share their tho


www.earthfiles.com...

everybody is confused, about normal

can't place any thing from that site here, whoops
[Edited on 16-3-2004 by Polar Bear]

[Edited on 16-3-2004 by Polar Bear]



posted on Mar, 17 2004 @ 04:56 PM
link   
Why don't we rap Sedna in foil and crash it in to Mars? Sedna sounds like it is made primarily of Ice anyways and the resulting impact would seed Mars with water and other elements. Ofcourse all this could take a couple hundred, thousand years but we can wait right?

Btw, I am just kidding... thought I would make a 3001 reference.



posted on Apr, 2 2004 @ 11:56 PM
link   
I think that Sedna is a planet. Just because it's smaller than our moon or Pluto, what defines it as a planet is of what the characteristics the Sedna holds. It's suppose to be red, well, it could possibly be rich in Iron like Mars and that's what causes Mars to be red. Already one comparison. Any why don't scientists use these telescopes that they use to view gallaxies that are millions of light years away from our solar system and use them to prove if whether or not Pluto and Sedna is a planet, and possibly find some others along the way? Now, I may not be very logical about this but doesn't it make sense? They found a galaxy full of planets out of our galaxy, and even discovered that one of them was like, 10 times larger than JUPITER! Doesn't that prove my point?





new topics
top topics
 
0

log in

join