Printable View
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hu..._20060410.html
That's right, I'm actually making a thread. :o
Anyway, "Xena?" Did they fire their naming staff or something? I'd have given it a better name than that. At the least stay in the whole Roman mythology theme, or at the least, Egyptian or Norse.
It's not a planet, it's just debris (rocky bodies known as comets or lost moons)
They just say it's a planet because it's partially inside the planetary system.
They named it Xena some time ago. We had a thread about it but I think it was in Eyes on the World.
I thought Jebus's post said "What's next? Naming a planet after a Pokemon?" and that's actually a pretty amusing idea.
Old news. But I didn't know they named it. I just knew when they found it.
Huh.
This is the first I heard of it. Then again, I never went into Eyes on the World. *shrug*
We should demand that they name the 11th planet..........Mr. Mime.Quote:
Originally Posted by Psychotic
if you read all the way to the end you'll find this:
"In time, the International Astronomical Union will designate the official name."
Of course you could always scroll down and only read the last sentence, too.
Let's send all the feminists there to die. :foot:
Yeah, I didn't finish reading the article, until after I posted it. >_>
If Xena is the same size as Pluto then they should name it Pluto 2!
Did they run out of Roman mythological figures or something? Meh. Hopefully they'll pick a better name the next time...:tonberry:
I demand the eleventh planet be named Joxer the Mighty.
The link is not working for me...
Anyways. I say they should call it Minerva to fit the Roman motif.
I'm suprised none of the FFVII fanboys said Sephiroth.....yeah Minerva would fit.
Xena? Xena was hot, but it bears a remarkable resemblance to the Scientologist XENU, which is not cool. Mainly because Scientology is a joke.
And I heard quite a while ago that they named it Sedna.
Thats old news! And it is also known as Sedna, see you learn something new everyday! :D I'm deeply fascinated by space, did you know that scientists have managed to remake the sound of the big bang by using whats called the universes background? Something else to research on google there! :D
I saw that name in an atlas of the solar system. I wonder why its now Xena?:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Acid Raine
Because Sedna is a BLOODY STUPID NAME.
http://space.com/scienceastronomy/06...t_shrinks.html
This might be interesting...
They named the moon Gabrielle. Nerds.
You said it, the astronomers are nerds.
Check out 2003 EL61! It's elliptical! And they named it Santa! HE DOES EXIST!
Also, Sedna and Xena are two different planets. One is 90377 Sedna and the other is 2003 UB313.
I wanna know about Europa, have they found life on that Planet yet or what. :cool:
Europa, a moon of Jupiter (ie not a planet), has so far only been photographed and not at high resolution. There are plans to get funding in order to send some kind of mission to Europa but I don't think it's progressed very far if at all.
Very interesting. I really want to learn more about astronomy, but I never have the time or money.
You don't need money, just buy a book (that's the only time you need money). Or look on the web, there's tons of sites you can learn about the Universe from.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun
No Internet connection either! However, I have definitely got a job now that pays well! So I'll look into it within the next few weeks, I think! The job should also make it so I can get my own connection pretty soon.
Sure, you can look into it without cash, but you can't do as much. Though, I guess buying a telescope would be meaningless with the pollution in the north-west of England.
Does anyone know if they've discoverd planets in other parts of the universe yet. :mog:
Universe or galaxy? I doubt they've discovered planets outside of our galaxy, but certainly they have outside of our solar system. 184 of them.
REALLY:eek: . do you know of a good website that has any pics of them.:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Loony BoB
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrasolar_planet
No photos or anything, but that's not surprising given that we don't even have decent photos of most of our own solar system. Keep in mind that we launched a probe to go to Pluto on January 19th this year - but it won't get there until July 2015.
I've got a question, this will probly sound stupid to space buffs, but i've never understood it. If Hubble can zoom in on galaxies 6 billion light-years away, why can't it zoom in on pluto which is in our solar system and see the smallest rock?. :confused:
Ever tried using a telescope to look at something a few feet away?
You'll also find that, despite it taking pictures of distant stars, they aren't exactly very clear.
Guess I'll have to bring pictures to make you guys understand that that's not a REAL planet like the others.:tonberry:
http://www.solarviews.com/browse/comet/kuiper3.jpg
http://www.physast.uga.edu/~jss/1010/ch13/13-13.jpg
Pluto is officially a planet just as much as any word in the Oxford dictionary is really a word. Why? Because the recognised authority on such matters decided that it is so, that's why.
As for "Xena", it is yet to be recognised as one. But it is possible. We won't know until September 2006, when the IAU release the official definition of the term 'planet'. Either Pluto will not be classed as a planet, or 2003 UB313 (Xena) will be - unless they find some kind of loophole.
This arguement about what defines a planet is annoying. Are even close to deciding?
I belive there are around 200 extrasolar planet. Mostly only several jupiter masses in size. So there are probably many more which cannot yet be detected.
I NEVER said Pluto wasn't a planet, but in all reality it isn't, its orbit doesn't allow it to be a planet, but since it was closer than the other Kuiper Belt objects they categorized it as a planet.:tonberry:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loony BoB
And no, that Xena won't be categorized as a planet I'm sure.:p
Hubble can't zoom on galaxies 6 billion light-years away:irked:Quote:
Originally Posted by The Void
They only detect other galaxies' light rays.
The definition will be made in September 2006, as per my post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lost Number
DeathKnight: Given that there is no strict definition of what is and is not a planet, no, you can't say that Pluto "in all reality" is not a planet.
There's no STRICT definition for it, but it is known that objects which have inclinations(comets) are not planets. From my image above, you can clearly see that Pluto's orbit is far different from all the others, making it an unknown kind of object VERY close to the Kuiper Belt, not really a planet. I mean, well, it is a planet, but anything farther than that is not a planet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loony BoB
Yeah Xena is smaller than scientists had origionally thought!
While there is no strict definition for a planet, there are requirements for a comet - must have a coma (a different form of atmosphere to a planet) and/or tail. If Pluto has neither of these then it can only be classed as either a planet, a planetoid or a meteoroid. The orbit, inclination and distance from the sun otherwise have little meaning. The distinction for "not a planet" is "smaller than a planet". Distance has nothing to do with it. It's also notable that quite a few other planetoids share Pluto's orbit, showing it is in fact just another level that some satellites of the sun have happened to settle on. It's also notable that there are comets that exist within the main asteroid belt that have a circular orbit around the sun, further showing inclination has little to do with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathKnight
No, they're just a bunch a nerds who watch too much of the Warrior Princess's adventures.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jebus
I just went to http://www.livescience.com/blogs/200...and-kill-xena/ which is linked from there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuraid
That was a great read. I particularly like the comments made by smeyers, wolvsden and Dave Brody, who made the following thoughts:
- Minor Planets? Dwarf Planets? Seems like we’d be virtually guaranteeing the discovery of a really big KPO. Then where would we be? Giant Dwarf Planet? Major Minor? Argh. ~smeyer, pointing out that we could end up finding more planets larger than Earth in the Kuiper Belt, so no matter what we say we could well end up with a large amount of planets anyway, so there's no need to be picky purely out of a desire to want to keep it to a simple memorable number.
- Now, I agree with the point raised by Britt (and others) about quantity — it wouldn’t be sensible to mandate schoolchildren commit a tedious list of bodies to memory. However, couldn’t we just add a line of demarcation somewhere in the solar system (a “local group” on a micro level)? What about an informal “nine historical planets” reflecting the current list, balanced with a proper classification scheme (when devised)? ~wolvsden, pointing out that we have no trouble saying that our galaxy is part of the cluster which is known as the Local Group (over 30 galaxies) which is in turn part of the supercluster Virgo Supercluster (a body full of clusters). We will eventually have to concede that there are inner planets and outer planets and that the outer planets are a lot further than Jupiter, Neptune and the like - they're in the belt. Those are the real outer planets.
- The taxonomy of stuff in the universe has been about where stuff was and where it’s going. That we see this stuff in the snapshot of time that is a human life is our handicap. The Universe doesn’t see it that way. And it doesn’t care. If short-lived human scientists waste time concocting arbitrary definitions THAT ARE SURE TO CHANGE, they risk losing the tenuous connection that non-scientists (most of us) have to the most important work humans can do: the pursuit of understanding what that universe is all about (“science”). Because that is what binds us together in a way that has allowed us to prosper exceptionally well. ~Dave Brody making the excellent point that we are so young in our understanding of our own solar system, let alone our galaxy or universe, that we have yet to reach the point of mind where we can know just what we're dealing with - hence we will have to accept that no matter what we decide, we'll have to respect that we're basing it only on what we know, and what we know is little - we might end up saying that Pluto is a planet and then find out that there are 500 other planets. We might end up taking Pluto out of the picture but still finding out there are 500 other planets, and then we'd all look really dumb. :p