REALLYOriginally Posted by Loony BoB
. do you know of a good website that has any pics of them.
REALLY
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.
Bow before the mighty Javoo!
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?.
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.
Bow before the mighty Javoo!
Guess I'll have to bring pictures to make you guys understand that that's not a REAL planet like the others.
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.
Bow before the mighty Javoo!
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.
The last words of Oscar Wilde, to the wallpaper in his room - "One of us has to go"
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.
And no, that Xena won't be categorized as a planet I'm sure.
Hubble can't zoom on galaxies 6 billion light-years awayI'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?.
They only detect other galaxies' light rays.
The definition will be made in September 2006, as per my post.
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.
Bow before the mighty Javoo!
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.
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.
Bow before the mighty Javoo!
No, they're just a bunch a nerds who watch too much of the Warrior Princess's adventures.
Kaycee says (12:06 AM):
whos' obama?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
